1) on one side he states that non-monetary txs are a passing thing and will fade out as they are not economically sound/competitive, on the other hand he says that if these kind of txs made “out-of-band” end up becoming economically relevant they might exacerbate the mining centralization problem. Seems contradictory to me, can’t say they will fade out but at the same time say they can become economically relevant and exacerbate problems

2) like many, he approaches mining centralization from a “negotiating the least possible harm right now” rather than exploring way to actually fight it (for example stratum v2). Personally this is something I noticed a lot, namely a big concern for miners, their fees, how to limit the harm they might do now. But this is done from a position of acceptance that they are the bully and we need to work around them. Miners are super short term oriented, they will do anything to get a dollar today without caring about tomorrow. I don’t like where the focus is directed, working on better solution to actually contain them (stratum v2) is the way. If you take for granted the present situation and think only how to contain it, you will not direct your focus on finding solutions to actually change it for the better. This is why I don’t like all this acceptance of mining centralization and how we should negotiate with miners, and this op_return seems to be based very much on this way of thinking