As the creator of the largest bitcoin (BTC) treasury firm, Strategy (previously known as MicroStrategy), many anticipated that Michael Saylor would assume a leadership role in this year’s ongoing conflict between Bitcoin Core and Knots node operators.
Regrettably, during his recent appearance at the Bitcoin Treasuries NYC Unconference, when questioned by an audience member regarding the controversial modification to OP_RETURN central to this dispute, he did not deliver a satisfactory response.
Paul Sztorc criticized his reply as a “nonsensical pro-ossification answer” that revealed “no real understanding of the issues.”
Another attendee remarked it was “one of the most convoluted statements I have ever heard.”
The disagreement has persisted for nearly a year over Bitcoin Core’s contentious allowance for arbitrary data storage. Dissidents from Knots have been operating software to protest against Core’s modifications.
In contrast to Core version 30 (v30), which increased limits significantly, Knots software aims to maintain restrictions on OP_RETURN usage—the primary method for storing random media or computer files—keeping its limit below 90 bytes in their default mempool.
Read more: Bitcoin Core developers plan OP_RETURN modification for October
An audience member sought insights from Saylor regarding his thoughts on Core’s proposed increase. However, he sidestepped providing a direct answer.
Saylor’s Take on the OP_RETURN Controversy
Saylor expressed caution about protocol proposals. “I believe even well-intentioned protocol suggestions can lead to significant issues,” he stated.
“The current debate surrounding OP_RETURN limits represents either a second-order or possibly even third-order change,” he elaborated. “It doesn’t alter BTC quantity—which is an atomic zero-order change—or block size—a first-order change; it’s somewhere between second-and-a-half and third order.”
“The community’s reaction—essentially rejecting it—is quite healthy,” he added. “It’s wise to be skeptical about changes at this level since they could escalate into more significant alterations that might jeopardize everything.”
Saylor further discussed potential risks posed by capable yet misguided developers attempting improvements deemed ‘good’ but not necessarily ‘great’ for Bitcoin.
He emphasized concerns about unintended consequences stemming from seemingly positive efforts aimed at enhancing or modernizing Bitcoin software.
This response led some observers to interpret it as supportive of Knots or ossification; however, others contested such interpretations were accurate.
The overall feedback indicated limited comprehension regarding technical disputes between these two software variations. Notably absent from Saylor’s comments were mentions of critical factors like data storage capacity implications, node operation costs influenced by changes made, distinctions between mempool defaults versus base layer consensus, and years-long resistance from the Knots community against various forms of non-BTC-related data storage activities on-chain.