1. There is no size of data embedding where use of anything other than OP_RETURN or the witness is preferred. Given that most node policies already allow the relay of arbitrarily large data up to the tx standardness size limits (using multiple P2SH outputs), no size limit on OP_RETURN is compatible with the reasonable policy goal to incentivize all data embedding to use OP_RETURN outputs as *opposed* to anything else.
2. Once the OP_RETURN size limit is removed, the restriction on # of OP_RETURN outputs does not accomplish anything.
3. 0.1 sat / vB was chosen among other reasons, since it was below the feerate observed on the network, and above the estimated bandwidth cost an attacker would pay to consume 1 byte of bandwidth from every node on the network, if you'd like to read more: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/changing-the-minimum-relay-feerate/1886, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106
Amazing how much oxygen it takes to sustain life with no observable brain function.
exactly, banning peers that send consensus invalid transactions could result in network splits after soft forks.
But you do have the option to do what you want with your computer, run whatever node software you want, modify it and redistribute it, heck there's even a maintained fork of bitcoin core that aligns with the values that you have if you don't have the time or inclination to do that.
but your freedom to run whatever software you want, doesn't extend into an entitlement to command open source software developers to make software you want as you want it, especially when they have technical reasons, whether you think they're right or wrong or understand them or don't understand them, for believing that the option is ineffective at preventing the spam that you don't want on your computer, and causes other harms to every node on the network running that software by increasing block propagation times.
Right, but #1 is quite rare, and #2 to a use case that people wouldn't use witness data for anyways, even if there is a point to be made about the use of OP_RETURN by far being preferrable to the use of witness data, it seems a red herring to suggest that relaxing OP_RETURN standardness policy will reduce harm by increasing the number of people who use OP_RETURN over inscriptions, when there is actually strong disincentives for doing that, and the only hope is for the altruism of users.
