Core v30’s OP_RETURN Shift: Relay Policy, Miner Incentives, and Governance Risk

• My 'briefing notes' summarize the content of podcast episodes; they do not reflect my own views.
• They contain (1) a summary of podcast content, (2) potential information gaps, and (3) some speculative views on wider Bitcoin implications.
• Pay attention to broadcast dates (I often summarize older episodes)
• Some episodes I summarize may be sponsored: don't trust, verify, if the information you are looking for is to be used for decision-making.

Summary

The September 13, 2025 episode of Bitcoin Not Crypto features ForrestHODL analyzing Core v30’s OP_RETURN policy shift and relay rationale. He contrasts Core contributors’ claim that filtering is ineffective and decentralization-preserving with objections about spam, illicit-content risk, and miner centralization via out-of-band relays. The discussion frames a governance test between fee-market discipline and node sovereignty, with alternative client adoption used as a signal of dissent.

Take-Home Messages

1. Relay Defaults: Core v30 relaxes OP RETURN defaults and deprecates the size option, moving policy toward permissive relay.
2. Filtering Limits: Core argues filters fail against determined users and that mirroring mined reality aids propagation and DoS resilience.
3. Centralization Risk: Critics warn permissive defaults plus out-of-band relays could advantage large miners and erode competition.
4. Operator Burden: Larger arbitrary data raises bandwidth, storage, and reputational exposure for node operators.
5. Governance Signal: Rising use of alternative clients functions as network feedback against Core’s default trajectory.

Overview

ForrestHODL examines Core v30’s relaxation of OP_RETURN defaults and the deprecation of the data-carrier size setting, arguing that Core’s rationale has been communicated narrowly. He reviews statements associated with Core contributors, including guidance to read technical Q&A and a public letter on relay policy. His goal is to restate the claimed benefits in plain terms and weigh operational and governance trade-offs.

Core’s case holds that filters cannot stop data embedding because payloads can be disguised and sent directly to miners. Proponents say uniform relay improves fee estimation and compact-block propagation and reduces incentives for private submission rails. They expect inefficient non-payment use to diminish as fees rise, making policy discouragement both weak and counterproductive.

ForrestHODL contests that even mild discouragement matters and removing it shifts toward tacit encouragement. He argues deprecation narrows node sovereignty while resource and reputational costs shift to operators as large data relays increase. He questions whether out-of-band growth is a durable centralization threat or a transient, hype-driven phenomenon.

The discussion separates consensus rules from policy, with ForrestHODL opposing consensus bans but supporting stronger policy-level filters. He cites alternative client adoption as a protest signal and flags the risk that permissive defaults ease embedding of illicit material. He closes that miners’ business risks should not dictate relay defaults and calls for reevaluating the change.

Stakeholder Perspectives

1. Core developers: Favor relay that tracks what miners include to optimize propagation, DoS safety, and fee estimation.
2. Alternative client maintainers: Prioritize configurability and operator choice; view deprecation as governance overreach.
3. Large mining pools: Evaluate out-of-band relays for revenue but face compliance and reputational constraints.
4. Small miners: Seek minimized propagation gaps and fear advantages accruing to pools with private submission pipelines.
5. Node operators: Want control over bandwidth, storage, and liability exposure rather than permissive defaults by fiat.

Implications and Future Outlook

Whether deprecation proceeds toward removal of configurability will shape operator trust and client diversity. If permissive relay prevails and out-of-band channels remain marginal, Core’s thesis of fee-market discipline and better propagation may hold. If private relays scale, centralization concerns will intensify and pressure a return to explicit operator controls.

Legal and reputational risk from embedded illicit material is the near-term catalyst for renewed policy debate. Observable signals include propagation performance under mixed policies, measurable shifts in miner concentration tied to private pipelines, and continued alternative client adoption. Tooling that exposes clear, auditable policy choices without forking could stabilize expectations.

Market incentives will test assumptions faster during fee spikes and congestion regimes. If non-payment uses persist despite costs, expect fresh proposals that blend relay pragmatism with guardrails. If they fade, the argument for permissive defaults strengthens while governance scrutiny of deprecation remains.

Some Key Information Gaps

1. How might out-of-band relay services impact miner decentralization? Understanding relay market structure is essential to prevent competitive lock-in and preserve entry for smaller miners.
2. What safeguards can reduce the risk of illicit material appearing in transactions? Practical screening and operator controls are needed to limit legal exposure without undermining permissionless access.
3. What are the governance implications of deprecating configurability in relay policy? Clarifying default power versus user sovereignty can guide durable norms for client behavior.
4. Where is the line between spam control and censorship in policy-layer filtering? A clear framework can protect payment freedom while discouraging resource-draining patterns.
5. How do competing implementations affect long-term consensus and network cohesion? Mapping fragmentation risks informs mitigation strategies before incompatibilities emerge.

Broader Implications for Bitcoin

Protocol Governance and Default Power

Default settings function as soft power in decentralized systems and can meaningfully steer behavior without changing consensus rules. Sustained reliance on permissive defaults could normalize larger non-payment payloads and reset expectations for node duties. Clear norms for when and how defaults are deprecated would reduce governance friction and protect operator trust.

Miner Competition and Relay Market Structure

If private submission rails become table stakes, capital-rich pools could entrench advantages through latency and deal flow. Competitive neutrality may require open, auditable relay pathways and incentives that blunt exclusive access effects. Absent such checks, entry barriers rise and variance risk tilts against smaller miners.

Legal Liability and Infrastructure Hardening

Growth in arbitrary data increases the chance that nodes and pools encounter content with legal implications across jurisdictions. Operators will need clearer policies, logging, and modular controls to manage exposure while maintaining permissionless properties. Expect demand for compliance-aware tooling that preserves cryptographic guarantees yet documents operator intent.

Client Diversity and Consensus Risk

Divergent policy defaults can harden into distinct operator communities and raise the probability of accidental fractures. A healthy ecology of clients requires coordination on safe-by-default interfaces and explicit opt-ins for contentious behaviors. Governance rituals that surface and resolve policy rifts early reduce the risk of brittle splits.

Blockspace Economics and Market Signaling

Fee regimes are information systems; persistent non-payment demand changes pricing signals and mempool dynamics. Durable shifts would influence wallet design, batching strategies, and L2 routing choices. Transparent metrics that distinguish payment versus data loads can guide smarter congestion policies.

Public Perception and Institutional Adoption

Headlines about harmful data on-chain can chill enterprise and public-sector engagement even if technical risk is bounded. Proactive communication and demonstrable operator controls can stabilize perceptions during policy transitions. Absent that, reputation shocks may spill over into regulatory posture and custody standards.