Blockchain data provider Bitquery has published a census of text embedded in Bitcoin, scanning 965,135 blocks and identifying 96,231 fake-address text outputs that remain in the unspent transaction output set. The study, released Sept. 2, distinguishes between OP_RETURN data, which adds to block history without burdening the UTXO set, and fake-address outputs that appear spendable but have no corresponding private key.
The scan counted 13,062 OP_RETURN taunt transactions from 13,062 sending addresses across 579 blocks during a March 21-26, 2026 campaign. Those transactions paid 0.1014 BTC in aggregate fees and named Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr in a two-sentence taunt. Bitcoin’s chain records the text, timing, inputs, and fees, but not the payer or author.
Across the broader dataset, Bitquery classified 4,412,782 OP_RETURN outputs as readable text. The fake-address method is different: it places readable bytes where an address hash would normally go, so nodes see an apparently spendable output. Bitquery estimated those 96,231 outputs hold about 3.2 BTC that is effectively unspendable, and they persist as current node state unless spent.
The findings follow Bitcoin Core 30.0, released in October 2025, which made larger OP_RETURN transactions easier to relay under default policy by raising the -datacarriersize setting to 100,000 and allowing multiple OP_RETURN outputs within an aggregate limit. The report noted that messages longer than the former 80-byte ceiling appeared only a few dozen times in most months before v30 and rose into the thousands by February 2026, though the sequence does not prove v30 alone caused the increase.
Bitquery also lacked coinbase fields for 191,427 historical blocks and did not count witness inscriptions, so the study compares four measured channels rather than every piece of embedded text. The practical takeaway is that OP_RETURN expands block history without bloating the UTXO set, while fake-address text creates a lasting node-state burden and can distort on-chain address metrics. The report frames the issue as a data-quality and UTXO-bloat concern, not a break in Bitcoin’s consensus rules or security.
