There's no point arguing over what you consider a moral argument then.
Discussion
I would like to say that OP_RETURN is the best shot we have at harm reduction. For what it's worth I have been supportive of e.g. making p2ms transactions non-standard. That's not going to happen, but at least we can reduce harm by making OP_RETURN an option for fake p2ms data encumbering users.
Sure, I am not against OP_RETURN having no technical limit. What I am against is making the field unpruneable. If I want a limit on MY mempool's acceptance I don't want to have to fork the software. That's ridiculous. Also, keep the default where it is and let the spammers increase their OP_RETURN data carrier limit. That is more than fair. Spammers set their data carrier limits and do their worst. Others who disagree can run their filters and see who is more prevalent on the network.
An op_return output will always be prunable. I also think the specific setting should remain in Bitcoin Core for at least the near future. A new PR relaxing the limit, but not removing the setting was opened today.
But why would people even use OP_RETURN when they can pay 1/4th the fees to get a witness discount? Doesn’t it seem like OP_RETURN is just hoping for goodwill (at 4x the fee cost) from people making unspendable outputs
Sjors just posted about that
Right, but #1 is quite rare, and #2 to a use case that people wouldn't use witness data for anyways, even if there is a point to be made about the use of OP_RETURN by far being preferrable to the use of witness data, it seems a red herring to suggest that relaxing OP_RETURN standardness policy will reduce harm by increasing the number of people who use OP_RETURN over inscriptions, when there is actually strong disincentives for doing that, and the only hope is for the altruism of users.
Right, I also don't think existing protocols have much incentive to move either. #1 isn't rare at all though, it is one of the main causes of utxo set bloat through fake p2ms outputs, which would be mitigated by using OP_RETURN.
I don't care what spammers do to get their data on chain. What I do care about ia having the option to do what I want with my computer. That's it. Everyone keeps turning the discussion to "If you were king of Bitcoin how would you stop spam?"
I am just one participant, with a few nodes, that wants to run code with more options not fewer, okay?
But you do have the option to do what you want with your computer, run whatever node software you want, modify it and redistribute it, heck there's even a maintained fork of bitcoin core that aligns with the values that you have if you don't have the time or inclination to do that.
but your freedom to run whatever software you want, doesn't extend into an entitlement to command open source software developers to make software you want as you want it, especially when they have technical reasons, whether you think they're right or wrong or understand them or don't understand them, for believing that the option is ineffective at preventing the spam that you don't want on your computer, and causes other harms to every node on the network running that software by increasing block propagation times.
I am not commanding. I am saying they are short sighted and adding more support for spam. It's speech, not force.