In the Bitcoin (BTC) ecosystem, a recent debate has captured the attention of developers, node operators, and users: one is the proposed changes to Bitcoin Core, the most widely used software client for interacting with the network, and the removal of the limit on OP_RETURN, a function that allows data to be embedded into Bitcoin.  

This conflict, initially technical, has led to more philosophical than practical positions among the protocol's collaborators. As a result many node operators have begun migrating to Bitcoin Knots, an alternative client, instead of using Core. 

At the time of this writing, out of a total of 22,064 active Bitcoin nodes, 1,953 are using Knots, while Core currently maintains 20,062 nodes, although this number has been declining since the end of February 2025, according to Coindance. This means that Knots represents almost 9% of the total, an unprecedented percentage that reflects the recent and growing adoption of this client. 

This data can be seen in the following graph (grey line, total nodes; falling yellow line, Core nodes; rising green line, Knots nodes):  

While Knots node runners are increasing, the number of Core nodes is falling. Source: Coindance.

What is Bitcoin Knots and what features does it have? 

Bitcoin Knots is a software created and managed primarily by Luke Dashjr, a well-known developer in the ecosystem and co-founder of the OCEAN mining pool, an initiative focused on decentralized BTC mining. Dashjr has been one of the most critical voices against the proposed changes to Bitcoin Core, arguing that these could compromise the efficiency and decentralization of the network.  

Knots is a fork of Bitcoin Core, meaning it takes the Core codebase and modifies it to include additional features. While it shares most of its code with Bitcoin Core, Knots introduces specific tweaks that its proponents say better protect the network's principles of decentralization and efficiency. Its GitHub repository highlights three configurations that set it apart: 

First, Knots limits the size of data that can be embedded in the network using OP_RETURN to 42 bytes. OP_RETURN is a transaction type that allows information such as metadata, images, and text to be stored in the Bitcoin archive, but if abused, it can increase storage requirements, potentially impacting node performance. This limit is intended to prevent excessive use of Bitcoin for non-monetary data. 

Second, Knots enables the “reject parasites” option by default, which filters out transactions considered to be of low value to the network ( spam ), such as those that would consume resources without providing significant benefits. This would help keep the mempool (the set of transactions pending confirmation) cleaner and more efficient.  Finally, Knots offers the ability to decline token-related transactions, although this option is disabled by default. 

And Bitcoin Core? 

Bitcoin Core, on the other hand, is open source (Knots inherits that quality as well), and is the reference client for Bitcoin, used by most nodes to keep the network running. It is developed by a community of regular contributors, with thousands of historical contributions , and its updates are published on bitcoincore.org after a review process. 

Bitcoin Core allows a larger limit on the OP_RETURN field (80 bytes) than Knots. For example, if a Core operator wanted their node to only accept transactions that include up to 42 bytes of data, as Bitcoin Knots does by default, they would need to specify that setting in the client.  

While it doesn't have specific features to reject low-value or token-related transactions, as Bitcoin Knots does, Core allows you to adjust fee and forwarding policies to reduce their impact. 

Thus, one could conclude that Core does not offer such granular or specific control, reflecting its more generalist and less restrictive approach compared to Knots (which does not make one better or worse than the other). 

Opinions on this debate in the Bitcoin community 

The core of the conflict lies in proposed changes to Bitcoin Core, specifically the relaxation of the OP_RETURN limit, which some developers see as a risk to decentralization.  

On X, the researcher and developer known as callebtc expressed his pro-Bitcoin Core stance: “Now is a great time to show support for Bitcoin Core. Not because Knots can achieve anything (it can’t, it’s been discussed endlessly), but because people are confused, angry, and being manipulated by their influencers into believing that the team behind Core is untrustworthy.” 

However, the responses to callebtc reflect the diversity of opinions in the ecosystem. One user retorted on that X thread: “I’m not against innovation, but bloating the chain with arbitrary data via relaxed OP_RETURN limits goes directly against the mission of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed as money , not a canvas for JPEGs or embedded garbage. Keeping the chain light is what protects nodes, decentralization, and long-term resilience. Knots isn’t trying to ‘achieve’ anything spectacular. It’s about keeping things tight, predictable, and aligned with the original spirit: global consensus through simplicity.”

Another person added a more pragmatic approach: “Core is developed by people, and people are corruptible. The best way to combat corruption is through free market competition. That's why I support more clients competing with each other. Let node operators decide who they trust.”  

A third comment elaborated on the distrust some have toward Bitcoin Core : “They want to take away the autonomy of node operators and impose their own policies. It's no surprise there's such a lack of trust.” 

To this, callebtc offered an interesting response: “'Your own policy'? There are dozens of different policy rules, you're only focusing on one of them and have been blindly accepting all the others for years.” 

Jack Dorsey's stance and criticism of Knots 

The debate has also been addressed by influential figures such as Jack Dorsey, an investor in OCEAN and a funder of Bitcoin Core development. Dorsey reacted to claims by Luke Dashjr about Bitcoin Knots, debunking several ideas that have been circulating : “I’ve been seeing some claims that ‘Bitcoin Knots is part of the Bitcoin Core project’, that ‘Bitcoin Knots is just another version of Bitcoin Core’, and that ‘Bitcoin Knots has more contributors than Bitcoin Core’,” he wrote on X. 

Dorsey asserted that Bitcoin Core has a strong development team and a community review process, while Knots appears to be a single-developer project with no external review: “Bitcoin Knots is a fork of Bitcoin Core. It appears to be developed by a single developer who uploads changes directly without peer review.”

Dorsey continued: “Bitcoin Knots releases are composed of modified Bitcoin Core source code with a set of approximately 1,400 commits. The same individual issues the releases unilaterally. There is no indication that anyone else has contributed code to or directly reviewed Bitcoin Knots. Bitcoin Knots is not endorsed by the Bitcoin Core project.” 

So, as the community continues this intense discussion, several questions arise, including: Is this a genuine debate about the direction of Bitcoin or a controversy fueled by misunderstandings and mistrust?  

For now, it seems to depend on who you ask. The truth is, with nearly 9% of nodes opting for Knots, the ultimate answer to Bitcoin's crisis and controversy is “more decentralization.”