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.