More stuff on block chain means more data means more storage required for nodes means only very rich people with access to large data pools like AWS are capable of running nodes.
We are watching bitcoin centralization unfold in front of us in real time.
That’s what the existing block limit is for.
The bigger issue than size is utxo bloat. Which admittedly OP_RETURN doesn't really do anything to fix in either direction, because after a modest size is reached, the segwit discount makes it cheaper to bloat the utxo set than to use OP_RETURN anyway.
The current uproar is definitely not an existential argument. I'm glad it's shining more light on Knots though, which I was already using anyway, and also on the governance issues around having a monopoly on node development. We need alternatives that are maintained in a robust manner, precisely to offset any centralization of power in the hands of whoever controls a given github account.
And sure, you can always just not upgrade your software...for awhile. Eventually security fixes come out, and then you get to decide whether to stay vulnerable or to do whatever that cabal has told you to do. Not an ideal situation.
Knowing Bitcoin, my guess is that putting things there will become too expensive before regular transactions do.
