I read it and thought it over.

While these fears hold value (miner and node centralization), however, the solution presented because of these fears, of increasing op_return to a higher size, is one defeatism and being under the mercy (or boot) of bad miners.

If what will happen is that most large miners will bypass all of the public nodes that are throwing away the bad transactions, so they can get those extra fees, then they'll be facing a bigger threat than the threat of losing out on those extra fees, which is the masses of people that will work with their governments and other agencies to shut down miners (big ones and small ones) for illegally collecting and retaining, processing, and force distribution of illegal data, willingly, that is connected with the transaction. This will result in the biggest financial blow that they can get hit with, and more (prison time) in comparison to just not getting a bit more in fees.

So, will miners fear missing out on potential extra revenue, or will they fear having their whole operation shut down and go to prison? I think the weight difference is clear here.

It seems like, to me at least, the reasons to increase op_return is not good enough, or not a good one at all.

Thank you for sharing that post and informing me on the official reasons of the op_return size increase, which is now deemed not good enough (again, for me at least).