Depends on the definition of *stop*.
Responsively Resistant. Allows spamming at a cost.
Bitcoin fees are standing by, ready to *make them pay* Spammers pay, then pay, then keep paying……Eventually they run out of resources.
SATs have then flowed to miners.
On a long enough time window, fees *stop* spammers and scammers and those who censor
It’s an ultramarathon, not a sprint. They all eventually stop running.
Not the point. Disallowing things outright stops it...on your computer. THAT is the point. No one is under the illusion that this OP_RETURN limit prevents spam outright. It is a choice that should be left to the end user. If 99% of users disable the limit, arbitrary data is valid by consensus. If 99% keep the limitation, then arbitrary data is limited by consensus.
Taking away the choice is the contention not the spam itself.
OK, yes leaving the option open is resonable.
I would say, though, that some (many?) seem to be "under illusions"...
I mean people may extrapolate and conflate their own node policy with the network at large.(My node filters spam so, "if everyone else does what I do" then spam will be "gone") But at some point that does become the reality if people prefer that policy just from a feasibility aspect. Spam would HAVE to be side loaded to a miner making it cost prohibitive.
