Bitcoin Developer Stores 66KB Image On-Chain, Challenging BIP-110… |

What Did the Proof-of-Concept Show?

Slovak Bitcoin developer Martin Habovštiak has embedded a 66-kilobyte TIFF image directly into the Bitcoin blockchain as a single contiguous transaction, disputing key arguments behind the proposed “anti-spam” soft fork known as BIP-110. The transaction is publicly verifiable and can be decoded from raw hex data into a valid TIFF image using standard software. According to Habovštiak’s write-up, the image was stored without using OP_RETURN, Taproot, or OP_IF — mechanisms often cited by supporters of BIP-110 as primary vectors for large-scale arbitrary data storage. Habovštiak published the demonstration along with instructions for independent verification using any Bitcoin full node. The image depicts Bitcoin Knots developer Luke Dashjr, a prominent advocate of restricting non-financial data on the network.

Why Does This Matter for BIP-110?

BIP-110, introduced in October 2025 as a temporary one-year soft fork, proposes limits on OP_RETURN outputs, caps on individual data pushes, and additional restrictions on scripting features that enable storing large files on-chain. The proposal emerged after Bitcoin Core’s v30 release effectively removed earlier limits on OP_RETURN data. Supporters of BIP-110 argue that large data inscriptions create legal exposure for node operators and divert Bitcoin from its role as a monetary network. Critics counter that such limits are ineffective or can be bypassed using alternative script constructions. Habovštiak’s transaction is designed to test that claim. By embedding the image without relying on OP_RETURN, Taproot, or OP_IF, he argues that the proposal’s restrictions would not prevent similar data storage. He also created a version of the transaction that complies with BIP-110 rules and tested it in Bitcoin Knots’ regtest environment. According to his analysis, the compliant version required more total data than the original.

Investor Takeaway

The dispute is not about one image file. It reflects a deeper governance tension over how Bitcoin should balance open scripting flexibility with pressure to limit non-monetary data.

How Is the Bitcoin Knots Camp Responding?

Luke Dashjr, who maintains Bitcoin Knots and serves as CTO of the Ocean mining pool, has rejected the characterization of the transaction as contiguous. In a post on X, he wrote, “His spam isn't and doesn't contain contiguous images.” Dashjr has described on-chain inscriptions as spam since 2023 and has been among the most vocal proponents of limiting arbitrary data storage. BIP-110 backers argue that contiguous file storage increases compliance and legal risk for node operators while consuming block space that could otherwise serve financial transactions. The debate has grown sharper as Bitcoin Knots adoption has increased. According to data from The Bitcoin Portal, about 8.8% of nodes currently signal support for BIP-110, which is implemented exclusively through Bitcoin Knots. Node count for Knots has risen substantially since early 2025.

What Does This Mean for Bitcoin Governance?

Habovštiak said the project was a one-time effort and that he would not publish the code used to construct the transaction. He described himself as an opponent of blockchain spam but said he was motivated by what he viewed as inaccurate claims about the technical feasibility of restricting contiguous data storage. “There's something I hate much more than spam: Untruths,” he wrote. “I tried arguing about this in the past, showed a contiguous image encoded to fit into witness, and yet, the Knots supporters are still saying the same stuff over and over.” The news highlights a familiar pattern in Bitcoin governance where technical disputes quickly spill into ideological disagreements about what the network is for and who defines its boundaries. While BIP-110 currently has support from a minority of nodes, its backers argue that clearer limits are needed to preserve Bitcoin’s intended use. Opponents respond that restrictions aimed at specific opcodes or script paths may not achieve the intended effect and could even increase complexity without reducing total data usage. As the network continues to process inscriptions and other non-financial data, the question remains whether technical limits can meaningfully constrain behavior — or whether market forces and fee dynamics will determine block space allocation instead.