{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"hodlonaut wrote","author_name":"hodlonaut (npub1cj…wj2rh)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1cjw49ftnxene9wdxujz3tp7zspp0kf862cjud4nm3j2usag6eg2smwj2rh","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"That's missing the bigger picture.\n\nOP_RETURN was deliberately limited (80 bytes, one per tx) as a DISCOURAGEMENT mechanism for non-monetary data on the base layer. \n\nIt was never meant to be a general-purpose data dumpster.\n\nBy uncapping it to effectively unlimited, Core removed that discouragement without broad consensus. They did it despite:\n\n- Strong opposition on GitHub (4:1 against in related discussions/PRs)\n- Warnings from prominent voices (Nick Szabo, Giacomo Zucco, Samson Mow, Jimmy Song, Luke Dashjr, etc.)\n- No real attempt to build social consensus first\n\nThis wasn't \"conservative security-first.\" It was a reckless philosophical pivot towards turning Bitcoin more toward a general data settlement layer at the expense of its focus as sound, scarce money. \n\nIt predictably fractured the community, boosted Knots adoption massively, sparked BIP-110 as a response, and created the current civil war, all for what many see as zero meaningful gain.\n\nCore could have kept the cap (or modestly raised it with discussion), but they arrogantly forced it through, handwaving concerns as bad faith or \"manufacturing drama.\" \n\nThat's the real issue: bad stewardship from Core."}