Bitcoin has once again captured global attention in 2025, reaching new all-time highs and solidifying its status as a preferred asset among institutional investors. Giants like BlackRock and national strategic funds now treat Bitcoin as digital gold—a long-term store of value. Corporations are following MicroStrategy’s lead, adding BTC to their balance sheets.
Yet, beneath this macro-level optimism, the Bitcoin network itself tells a different story.
Despite soaring prices, on-chain activity has cooled dramatically. According to The Block, Bitcoin’s 7-day moving average transaction count has dropped to just 317,000—its lowest level since October 2023. That’s a stark contrast to the 270,000 weekly transactions recorded when BTC was trading around $27,000. Today, at nearly $100,000 per coin, fewer transactions are being confirmed than during a much lower price cycle.
👉 Discover how blockchain innovations are reshaping miner incentives and on-chain activity.
This paradox raises a critical question: Is Bitcoin evolving into a passive reserve asset at the cost of network vitality?
For miners, the implications are immediate. After the 2024 halving reduced block rewards to 3.125 BTC, transaction fees have become essential for profitability. With low on-chain demand, many miners now accept transactions below 1 sat/vB just to keep operations running.
Contrast this with early 2023, when the Ordinals protocol ignited a wave of innovation. BRC-20 tokens like $ORdi drove unprecedented transaction volume, pushing fees—and miner revenue—to record highs. Now, that momentum has stalled.
But a new proposal within the Bitcoin Core development community may signal a thaw in this frozen ecosystem.
A New Vision for Transaction Relay
A recently published proposal—signed by 31 core developers—calls for a fundamental shift in how Bitcoin nodes handle transaction relay. Rather than filtering or restricting certain types of transactions, the proposal advocates for minimal intervention by nodes.
In essence: if a transaction meets economic demand and can be profitably mined, it should not be blocked from propagation.
This concept—often referred to as "flexible relay"—challenges long-standing norms in Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. Nodes currently act as gatekeepers, filtering out transactions deemed too large, too low-fee, or carrying non-standard data (such as inscriptions). The new proposal suggests stepping back from that role.
Instead of acting as traffic cops, nodes would function more like neutral conduits—passing along any valid transaction that miners might want to include. This doesn’t change consensus rules; it only affects how quickly and reliably transactions reach miners.
The goal? To let market forces—not software defaults—decide what gets confirmed.
Why This Matters for Inscriptions and Miners
At the heart of this debate lies OP_RETURN, a feature in Bitcoin’s scripting language that allows users to embed small amounts of data (up to 80 bytes) into transactions. Originally intended for simple metadata—like timestamps or hashes—it became the foundation for modern Bitcoin innovations.
Enter Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens. By creatively combining Taproot upgrades with OP_RETURN usage, developers unlocked the ability to inscribe digital artifacts directly onto Bitcoin’s blockchain—effectively creating NFTs and fungible tokens on the world’s most secure network.
However, the 80-byte limit severely restricts what kind of data can be stored. High-resolution images, rich metadata, or complex smart contracts simply don’t fit.
While the current proposal doesn’t explicitly call for increasing OP_RETURN limits, its philosophy supports broader data inclusion:
- Reduced filtering: Nodes would stop rejecting inscription-heavy transactions simply because they carry extra data.
- Improved propagation: Even within current limits, more inscription transactions would successfully reach miners.
- Future expansion path: If flexible relay gains acceptance, it could pave the way for later proposals to expand OP_RETURN capacity.
For miners, this means renewed opportunities for fee income. In 2023, inscriptions caused congestion—and fees spiked. A revival could help offset post-halving revenue declines.
For builders and creators, it opens the door to more expressive use cases: decentralized identity records, verifiable document anchoring, timestamped intellectual property, and more—all secured by Bitcoin’s immutability.
👉 Explore platforms enabling next-generation digital asset creation on secure blockchains.
Real-World Impact: A Use Case
Imagine an artist trying to mint a high-fidelity digital artwork on Bitcoin today. The metadata requires 200 bytes—well beyond OP_RETURN’s 80-byte cap.
Currently:
- The data must be split across multiple outputs or stored off-chain.
- Transactions risk rejection by nodes with strict relay policies.
- Users face higher failure rates and unpredictable confirmation times.
Under flexible relay:
- Nodes propagate the transaction regardless of size or data type.
- Miners choose whether to include it based on fee competitiveness.
- The user pays appropriately for space, ensuring fair access.
Result? Better UX, higher success rate, increased fee revenue for miners—and stronger incentives for continued network participation.
Community Debate: Innovation vs. Purity
As expected, the proposal has sparked intense discussion across developer forums and social platforms. On GitHub and X (formerly Twitter), debates rage between proponents of ecosystem growth and defenders of monetary minimalism.
Supporters argue:
- Flexible relay honors Satoshi’s original vision of an open, permissionless network.
- Miners should decide what to mine—not node operators.
- Data storage doesn’t compromise security; it enhances utility without altering consensus.
- Just as physical gold can be engraved, digital gold should allow meaningful data expression.
Critics warn:
- Unchecked data bloat could inflate blockchain size (already over 500GB per Glassnode).
- Full node operation costs may rise, threatening decentralization.
- “Junk transactions” could crowd out financial use cases.
- Clients like Bitcoin Knots already filter inscription traffic—undermining network unity.
Luke Dashjr, a prominent Core contributor, publicly rejected the proposal with a “NACK,” arguing it introduces indirect censorship by predicting which transactions will be mined—a violation of anti-censorship principles.
CoinDance data shows that while 93% of public nodes run Bitcoin Core, alternative clients like Knots (favored by inscription skeptics) hold steady at 7%. Should the proposal pass without broad consensus, client fragmentation—or even a soft fork—could follow.
History offers cautionary tales. The 2017 SegWit2x conflict nearly split the network over scaling debates. Today’s dispute isn’t about block size—it’s about purpose: Is Bitcoin solely money, or can it also serve as a permanent data layer?
What Comes Next?
The proposal does not require a hard fork. It’s a policy change, not a protocol upgrade. That means adoption depends on voluntary node upgrades—not universal agreement.
If enough node operators and miners adopt the new relay rules, we could see:
- Faster propagation of inscription and BRC-20 transactions
- Higher fee income for miners
- Renewed developer interest in Bitcoin-based applications
And if OP_RETURN limits are eventually expanded? The implications could be transformative.
But consensus is fragile. The path forward hinges on dialogue—not code alone.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Does this proposal change Bitcoin’s consensus rules?
A: No. It only updates transaction relay policies in Bitcoin Core software. Miners still decide which transactions to include based on fees and block space.
Q: Will this make Bitcoin slower or more expensive to use?
A: Not necessarily. Users pay market-driven fees. Those wanting fast confirmations will bid higher. Regular financial transactions won’t be displaced unless others pay more.
Q: Could this lead to blockchain bloat?
A: Potentially. More data per transaction increases chain growth. However, full node operators can still configure their own relay filters if needed.
Q: Is OP_RETURN going to be expanded beyond 80 bytes?
A: Not yet. This proposal doesn’t mandate expansion, but it creates a favorable environment for future discussions on increasing data capacity.
Q: How soon could this take effect?
A: If accepted through code review and testing, updates could roll out in a future Bitcoin Core release—possibly within months.
Q: What can I do to participate in this discussion?
A: Follow Bitcoin Core GitHub discussions, engage in community forums like Bitcoin Stack Exchange, or run your own node to influence network behavior.
👉 Stay updated on blockchain developments shaping the future of decentralized networks.
Final Thoughts
Bitcoin stands at a crossroads—not because of price fluctuations, but because of identity. Is it purely digital gold? Or can it also be a platform for innovation?
The flexible relay proposal won’t answer that alone—but it could unlock the next chapter of on-chain activity. For miners struggling post-halving and creators seeking expressive freedom, this small policy shift might just reignite the fire that once made Bitcoin’s ecosystem pulse with energy.
The spring of inscriptions may return—not with hype, but with sustainable demand driven by open access and economic incentives.
And when that happens, the world will watch not just the price—but the pulse of the network itself.
Core Keywords: Bitcoin Core, inscriptions, miner revenue, OP_RETURN, flexible relay, BRC-20, on-chain activity, transaction fees