its a valid transaction and they paid the fees to make it. the only thing that fixes ordinal inscriptions is higher value transactions with higher fees. this fad will get priced out when they get bored or run out of sats.

Do you understand what the term "Concept NACK" means?

That's not how Bitcoin works in practice. If something is possible some people will do it even if it doesn't seem rational.

If we lift the 80 byte limit on OP_RETURN the most likely outcome is that we'll start seeing plenty of huge OP_RETURNs in the mempool in addition to the current inscription spam.

Why would that bring chaos?

He hadn’t contributed in years and look at what he’s coming back with…

At a first glance, it looks like it is a lightweight Bitcoin full node (a node that only downloads the block headers instead of the entire history); thus, not useful for newcomer’s IBD phase, since it is not an archival full node. But I can be wrong. I’ve not done enough due diligence regarding that topic.

“Strange/rare” Sats distribution after auction?

I have not read yet the Floresta’s proposal/implementation. :/

Moreover, with diminishing number of regular Bitcoin nodes capable to provide blocks for the newcomer Bitcoin nodes’ IBD phase the chance for growth in regular Bitcoin nodes decentralization would be reduced.

It should be clear, the self-defense is against the threats of diminishing regular Bitcoin node decentralization; not about meaningless bits insertions. Those insertions are simple means for the goal of central entities control taking or not fully thought attempts to take the number one position as an alternative to the actual fiat system.

Maybe we focused on different things because somehow it made me a bit more hopeful 🤔

I never realized that assuming a constant block size the size increase of the blockchain in % is reduced every year until the rate of improvement of technology catches up. Sound like a journey through the desert and then we're good (if we don't die in the desert).