There is nothing official in Bitcoin.
Discussion
Besides, if there's more data in OP_RETURNs, there less room for data in Inscriptions; 4x less even.
Nor does it widen the attack surface in any real way-- except perhaps the attack surface nostr:nprofile1qqszq6eh3h2gyyjc0647hhrykqzsnvd0gyhcgkd5s60lp6wp0usqpmcpzamhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuegpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuervwdhh27np9ekx7mq3x3s2u describes at the end of the video, which you're helping create by regurgitating this nonsense.
This is an example of bad faith tactics. Core is the reference client. You are being pedantic. I guess that answers Tauri's question.
Core is Bitcoin's de facto reference implementation to the extent -- and _only_ to the extent -- that users treat it as such.
If you don't believe that to be true, what was the point of switching to Knots in the first place??
I'm talking about what he meant by "official" and you latching on to that word, ignoring the rest of his point. Core, as the current and original reference client, should retain a reasonable default limit on op_return. Care to respond to that or just argue semantics some more?
I’m not arguing semantics, it matters.
I and many others have explained this already, many times, including in the video this thread is a response to. I recommend watching it.
You can also read the article I myself wrote about this a month ago, in particular the “Bitcoin Core perspective” of course: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-core-or-bitcoin-knots-what-the-op_return-debate-is-actually-about
Or read what the Bitcoin Core developers wrote about it themselves: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
If you prefer that I explain it to you again that’s also ok, but then I’ll start charging for my time. Shoot me a DM in that case!