From: Majorian <majorianbtc@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [bitcoindev] [BIP Proposal] Soft Fork Compromise on op_return to Resolve Current Bitcoin Controversies
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 09:01:43 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f513d0af-90d1-43ee-ac8e-df55760674dan@googlegroups.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4318 bytes --]
Dear Bitcoin Development Mailing List,
I hope this email finds you well. I am Majorian, and I've been active in
the bitcoin space since 2017.
I'm not a programmer or technical expert by any means; I'm just someone who
has seen Bitcoin evolve over the years and wants to see it thrive without
unnecessary division.
I'm writing today to propose a simple compromise that I believe could help
bridge the gap between the various sides in the ongoing controversies in
the Bitcoin community following Core 30's release.
As many of you know, these debates have created a rift in the community. My
proposal isn't aimed at fully solving broader issues—that's a bigger
challenge requiring more comprehensive solutions. Instead, it seeks to
return Bitcoin to the de facto operational state it has maintained for over
a decade, where OP_RETURN has been used sparingly and responsibly for
metadata. The core goal is to codify at the consensus level the historical
node relay norms that have guided Bitcoin's operation effectively for
years, elevating these longstanding practices from policy to enforceable
rules to ensure consistency and stability across the network.The Proposal:
OP_RETURN Cap Soft ForkI suggest a backwards-compatible soft fork that
introduces the following consensus rules:
- Cap OP_RETURN data size at 83 bytes: This aligns closely with
historical norms (e.g., the 80-byte standard relay policy) This means that
OP_RETURN can be at most 83 bytes: 1 byte for the opcode, 1-2 bytes for the
data push, and 80 bytes of data. By enforcing this at consensus, we simply
make permanent the relay standards that nodes have followed in practice for
much of Bitcoin's history.
- Limit to 1 OP_RETURN output per transaction: This ensures transactions
adhere to traditional patterns, reducing potential abuse without disrupting
standard usage.
This approach codifies the proven, historical relay policies into consensus
rules, preserving Bitcoin's operational heritage.Why This Compromise?
- Simplicity: The rules are straightforward to implement and verify,
with minimal code changes required.
- Bridging the Divide: It addresses concerns of new attack vectors by
tightening OP_RETURN usage to match historical norms, while being agnostic
on 'spam.'
- Apolitical and Restorative: This proposal is deliberately apolitical,
aiming simply to return Bitcoin to the state it was in roughly a few weeks
ago, before recent debates intensified. It takes no sides regarding
specific implementations like Core, Knots, or others. While large
OP_RETURNs have been possible at the consensus level for a long time,
they've seldom been used in this manner until very recently. By capping
them, we principally address concerns about OP_RETURN being used as an
attack vector on Bitcoin, codifying the relay norms that have kept such
usage in check.
- Plausible Deniability: Enforcing these limits provides plausible
deniability, declaring firmly that Bitcoin is not designed or intended as a
peer-to-peer file sharing and storage protocol in the context of OP_RETURN.
This might be somewhat controversial, but I am including this anyway.
- Community Healing: By focusing on a modest, consensus-building change,
we can hopefully repair the current rift and refocus on bitcoin's future.
If this idea gains traction on the list, I'd love to see it formalized as a
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP). I'm not equipped to write the code
myself, but I can contribute to the discussion and help rally community
support. What do you all think? Is this a viable middle ground? Are there
technical pitfalls I'm missing? Feedback from experts like you would be
invaluable.
Thank you for your time and dedication to Bitcoin.
Best regards,
Majorian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/f513d0af-90d1-43ee-ac8e-df55760674dan%40googlegroups.com.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 13280 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2025-10-28 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-28 16:01 Majorian [this message]
2025-10-28 16:37 ` Martin Habovštiak
2025-10-28 16:50 ` Erik Aronesty
2025-10-28 17:38 ` 'Russell O'Connor' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-29 9:39 ` TokyoBitcoiner
2025-10-29 15:03 ` 'Russell O'Connor' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-29 16:10 ` yes_please
2025-10-30 2:10 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-10-30 15:04 ` Melvin Carvalho
2025-10-30 19:35 ` Martin Habovštiak
2025-10-31 6:31 ` Melvin Carvalho
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f513d0af-90d1-43ee-ac8e-df55760674dan@googlegroups.com \
--to=majorianbtc@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox