I suspect sarcasm but anyway ...

My comment is not only about judges but also about politicians and explicitly not about people caring about what is just and good for the people but about those who want to attack Bitcoin on the one hand and on the other hand the cost of both not deprecating a long established policy setting and setting the default to 160B instead of 100kB.

I think, the cost of limiting OP_RETURN to 160B for the foreseeable future is almost zero. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe the centralization from big OP_RETURNs not getting relayed is bigger than I thought. But given that very tiny cost, the very tiny potential for legal ramifications makes it just not worth it and the drama and noise Core went through to still go along with deprecation+100kB over 160B just feels off.

That said, appeasement is a slippery slope, too. If drama on social media can influence engineers to opt for more centralization then we might be on the way to getting Bitcoin captured by politicians.

So I'm not arguing for or against either side but I think it's not just Luke who cares about that nuance.

So to answer your list of examples:

- Using Bitcoin - a protocol that as of 2025 is designed for arbitrary data distribution: jail!

And again, I assume "using bitcoin -> jail" is reality in some jurisdictions already and we have to assume it will come to more jurisdictions either way. Having less CSAM in less readable formats on the chain might marginally help slow this trend while limiting OP_RETURN to 160B is a trivial burden thus I lean towards 160B limits over 100kB limits but more importantly I give it to knots proponents to see it just like that and don't want to discount their conviction as some Luke-cult thing.