Agree. But they still need the data from someone.
This change will result to even more pruned nodes, consequently more centralization on the level of "providers of the true"
Discussion
We should always calculate future resource burdens on nodes with full blocks, if the premise is that we want Bitcoin to be used. Changing policy does not change this calculation.
And it will increase because of this change. 😢
What will increase?
Storage space needed for full block nodes.
If the assumption is that blocks will be full, which is the assumption we should be operating under, this is not true. Blocks can't get fuller than full, because of a change to policy.
Correct, but if we fill blocks full of contracts and other data then there's less room for payments, the purpose of the network. It's a lot of different trade-offs to balance. I feel as if these changes are accepted then there's a good chance we start having a block size discussion right away because there's not enough block space.
I think we really need to keep it simple and focused or we risk blowing it all up.
Indeed, there might be a qualitative change, but no quantitative one for node runners. The change under discussion at the moment will probably not lead to a big change in data embeddings in the chain though. Stamps, brc-20, and inscriptions will porbably not move their infrastructure to a potentially more expensive OP_RETURN setup. Bare multisig, and emebedding data in the witness will probably remain more efficient for them. The positive hope of this change is that future protocols that need to anchor data in the chain every so often, will do so with in a prunable, and non-UTXO set polluting way. They will embed the data anyway, but changing the OP_RETURN limits might reduce harm.