F2Pool Rejects BIP-444 Soft Fork Limiting On-Chain Data
F2Pool co-founder Chun Wang has publicly rejected the proposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-444, calling it a “bad idea” and confirming that neither he nor F2Pool will support the soft fork. The BIP-444 soft fork aims to cap arbitrary on-chain data at 83 bytes, banning annexes, unknown witness versions, deep Taproot trees and conditional scripts to curb blockchain spam and limit non-transaction payloads, including NFT creation via the Ordinal protocol.
The proposal, introduced by developer Dathon Ohm in response to the removal of Bitcoin Core’s 80-byte OP_RETURN limit, is designed as a temporary measure until block 987,424 (around 1.3 years) to reassess a long-term solution. Proponents argue it reduces legal risks for node operators distributing illicit content and slows blockchain growth to protect Bitcoin’s monetary function. Critics counter that BIP-444 could stifle layer-2 innovation, increase centralization by raising node-running thresholds, and still be circumvented—developers like Peter Todd have demonstrated payload embedding within the limits.
This debate highlights the ongoing tension between preserving Bitcoin’s core monetary properties and supporting evolving use cases for on-chain data. Traders should monitor network adoption and community sentiment around BIP-444 as it could affect transaction fees, network scalability, and protocol governance.
Neutral
The rejection of BIP-444 by a major mining pool introduces governance uncertainty but does not directly affect Bitcoin’s utility or scarcity, so immediate price impact is likely minimal. In the short term, traders may monitor network sentiment and potential shifts in transaction volumes or fee structures, but the proposal is temporary and unlikely to alter market fundamentals. Over the longer term, resolution of the on-chain data limits debate could influence adoption costs and scalability—factors that bear on investor confidence—but competing proposals remain in play. Historical events show that protocol governance disputes without imminent network upgrades tend to have neutral price effects unless they threaten consensus or trigger contentious forks. Consequently, BIP-444’s fate is seen as a neutral catalyst, with traders focusing more on macro drivers than on-chain policy changes.