I was pretty surprised to hear that argument, too, as I hadn't heard it before. There is a logic to it that's very consistent, even if I don't agree.
So my main takeaway from this discussion is that nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk sees a legal and/or moral difference between data in OP_RETURNs and data in (say) Inscriptions.
*Even if* it’s the exact same data!
(The argument, to the best of my understanding, is that data in OP_RETURNs is “sanctioned” *as data* by Bitcoin Core now that the policy limit is lifted— whereas data in Inscriptions can only be “misinterpreted” as data.)
It does make me wonder how many people in the Knots camp actually understand that this is the level of nuance they are ultimately fighting over. (It seemed that even nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr kind of learned this live as they were recording…)
nostr:note19udfg096zlzxjsz6tlunq9hksjtzqfcqrgpeelgw8qc97wdht75s6fxcnp
Discussion
Kind of. Though I’m still not sure why it is “sanctioned” now that it’s default mempool policy, but not when it was already allowed per the consensus rules?..
Intent is important