Fair correction on OP_RETURN not being a consensus change since it didn’t require nodes to align. I appreciate the clarification.

On the scale question: if the original introduction of OP_RETURN was itself a compromise on principles, then the current debate about expanding it is really about whether that compromise should hold or shift further.

My concern is that scale debates become legitimacy debates. Once we accept that limiting arbitrary data is about protecting Bitcoin’s purpose rather than just technical constraints, we’re making ongoing judgments about what belongs. That feels like a different kind of governance than protocol rules.

But I take your point that witness data stuffing is a separate mechanism from OP_RETURN expansion, even if they’re related in practice.