Removing the op return limit is not aimed at allowing spam. It pushes spam into a box where it can be indentified as incidental data rather than potential transaction outputs which bloat the UTXO set. I can understand disagreeing with that approach but it is far from "allowing spam". The actual spammers are an entirely different group unaffiliated with the developers who implemented the change.
Discussion
WOW, lucky you when your node is full of pedophile photos, then we'll talk about what spam is.
If it's in the blockchain, you will be hosting it too unless you prune them. Which would be a lot easier if the attacker used OP_RETURN.
If you remove the limits, it can host complete images. What you're saying makes no sense. Now, to do that, you have to use additional software.
Good luck with the government. You're doing Bitcoin a disservice.
I'm not doing anything personally besides discussing it. The limits really are a joke though and don't actually prevent anything from making it to the blockchain. It just limits what your own node will forward via the P2P network.
Arguably it could force the attackers to spend more money on getting their data in, and hopefully run out sooner (which is the inevitable result of any spam attack on bitcoin).
I have nothing against NOTS and would considering even running it myself. My problem is just the framing that core is somehow intending to "allow spam" and intentioally trying to destroy bitcoin. They aren't, it's just a different cost/benefit analysis.
Your take is a joke. Go, lick Bitcoinâ„¢ COREporation's boots. You may find Bitcoin Unlimited interesting too.
By the way, Bitcoin was not created for this purpose.