- Knots reaches over 11% of active nodes, driven by stricter mempool policies and filtering of non-financial data.
- Core’s v30 datacarriersize update increases allowed data volume, prompting criticism over network exposure to spam transactions.
The Bitcoin network is undergoing a shift in how node operators choose their software. Of the roughly 22,000 active nodes, more than 2,500 are now running Bitcoin Knots, while Bitcoin Core, the long-standing reference client, accounts for about 19,300 nodes, according to Coin.dance. This puts Knots at over 11% of total usage, a figure that has been climbing steadily since April 2025, while Core’s share has gradually declined.
The shift appears to be tied to how each client handles transaction policies—rules that shape which transactions nodes accept, store, and relay. These policies do not affect Bitcoin’s core consensus rules, which determine the validity of blocks and transactions across the network. But they do influence how resources are used and which activities get priority.
OP_RETURN and the Debate on Data Transactions
A key point of difference involves OP_RETURN, a Bitcoin function used to embed arbitrary data—like text or images—into the blockchain. Core currently allows 80 bytes for such data but plans to lift the limit to 100,000 bytes in version 30. Knots, by contrast, sticks to a 42-byte default limit and offers tools to filter out transactions it categorizes as low-value.
This includes a feature known as “reject parasites,” which lets operators block non-financial data protocols such as Ordinals. These additions to Knots serve one core purpose: reduce load and maintain priority for monetary use cases.
Developers behind Core say the update aligns policy with user behavior, allowing more freedom in how the network is used. Activity on the chain in May 2025 backs this up. Thousands of users sent transactions containing no money, but rather images and data. That behavior suggests some want Bitcoin to serve beyond peer-to-peer value transfers.
Still, a segment of the network is resisting this. For those users, Knots offers a tighter approach, one that preserves control at the node level and emphasizes operator choice. That’s a defining difference.
Luke Dashjr’s Stance and Growing Dissent
Luke Dashjr, lead developer of Bitcoin Knots and head of the OCEAN mining pool, is one of the most vocal critics of Bitcoin Core’s direction. On June 10, he issued a public call for a mass migration to Knots, citing changes in Core v30 that, in his view, remove key protections.
His main concern revolves around the datacarriersize parameter. In prior Core versions, it limited data payloads to around 92 bytes. The new configuration, however, allows transactions to include up to 83 outputs of 10 bytes each—about 830 bytes total. That, he argues, opens the door to higher volumes of non-monetary content, which he sees as network spam.
Dashjr also points out that Core plans to deprecate this function entirely without notice in upcoming versions. He believes that move strips node operators of an important tool to filter unwanted content and may encourage misuse of the protocol.
In addition, Dashjr says Core has failed to address what he calls “Inscription vulnerabilities.” These methods—used by protocols like Ordinals and Runes—insert large amounts of non-standard data into transactions by exploiting gaps in validation. According to Dashjr, these gaps allow users to bypass limits and overload the network with content unrelated to financial transactions.
A Shift Rooted in Policy, Not Consensus
At its core, the difference between Knots and Core is not about how Bitcoin functions, but about how nodes handle the gray space between what is valid and what is preferred. Knots gives operators more control—control over which data they accept, which transactions they forward, and how blocks are assembled.
For some, that is a compelling reason to switch. It isn’t a matter of rejecting Core’s legitimacy, but of choosing a model where node-level preferences take priority. The choice reflects a growing interest in reasserting individual authority over node operations, especially in light of what some see as lax policies in Core’s roadmap.
Whether this trend continues will depend on how future versions of Core handle the balance between flexibility and protection. For now, the rise of Knots points to a segment of the network that wants less openness to data-heavy activity and more emphasis on Bitcoin’s original financial role.
In that regard, Knots isn’t just another client. For its users, it’s a tool to reclaim oversight in a network that increasingly allows uses beyond simple money transfers. That message appears to be spreading—one node at a time.
