Help me understand.
1. Some have said that keeping OP_RETURN size small is important for node operator liability, because large OP_RETURN size could lead to relaying/storing full files of any kind (including the most awful stuff).
2. Yet, the OP_RETURN size limit is not a consensus rule, i.e. nothing prevents a miner from including a transaction with a huge OP_RETURN in a block, already now.
3. What Core is doing, and Knots is against, is changing the relay policy, that decides which unconfirmed transactions the node shares with other nodes (~broadcasting), before they are included in a block. Right now the default policy is to not relay a transaction with an OP_RETURN exceeding 80 bytes.
4. I tend to agree that largeish arbitrary files pose a risk to Bitcoin. I understand that it's already possible to store it in small chunks over multiple transactions or otherwise, but that would require special software to interpret.
5. Therefore, I believe the fundamental problem is not really being addressed. The fundamental problem is that there is not a true OP_RETURN size limit to begin with.
6. If we accept the premise that large OP_RETURN size is a risk to Bitcoin, we should make the OP_RETURN size limit a *consensus rule* going forward. That is, a transaction with a large OP_RETURN would be invalid, and no miner could include it in a new block (unlike now).
7. I believe this is called a SOFT FORK. Not a comfortable word, but I think that would be the consistent position here.
Change my mind
#asknostr
nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgqgzx3h nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcqpqs05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sgew2ua nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqtxwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tmwwp6kyvtjw3k8zcmp8pervct409shwdtwx45rxmp4xseryerdx3ehy7f4v3axvet9xsmrjdnxw9jnsuekw9nh2ertwvmkg6n5veen7cnjdaskgcmpwd6r6arjw4jsqgq6lcx8fc7h0p8t4ya9u0a92jnwavqe9rgjwwdw3wjgxfuxsz8rd5mths8c nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcpzemhxue69uhks6tnwshxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qpq2rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sugh36r nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7cnjvghxjme0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyr7at68k4cxms9a7pdca5gzf3svqd95d3fj9j4vuyj0nyta8x3j2whad7ya nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skueqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqqgxv4fvwxlyeepdute65q298rz75vjz7t57txdzkj8k2hq782h2ges3dvnqp nostr:nprofile1qyw8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttjv4kxz7fwwak8vuewwdcxzcm9qythwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnxd46zuamf0ghxy6t6qqsqyredyxhqn0e4ln0mvh0v79rchpr0taeg4vcvt64te4kssx5pc0sk99k65
I think these are separate issues.
The relay policy matters because it determines what your own device is storing and transmitting.
A consensus change would address that too, but seems unnecessary since we don't currently have a problem with illegal material getting mined, despite it being consensus valid.
The issues are a bit different, I agree. But if you believe that arbitrary data is a threat to Bitcoin, removing its possibility via a consensus rule change seems only logical. Even moreso because a mined transaction would have to be stored permanently by every full node.
I can't speak for everyone with this concern, but it doesn't strike me as all-or-nothing. Changing the relay policy potentially has concerning impacts on the bitcoin network regardless of whether it changes what makes it into blocks.
