i appreciate the response, however it misses the point of my question. the protocol itself defines what is arbitrary. arbitrary means discretionary, literally does not matter what it is. the protocol allocates space for arbitrary data. Whatever content is in that space, the data is all good and valid to the protocol. this is the conflation, validity and censorship, that shortcut circuits the logic of the “censorship resistance” argument. validity concerns form censorship concerns content to censor is to moderate the type of content going into the space for arbitrary data the protocol does not “censor” transactions outside the protocol rules. it enforces validity; it’s a different category so censorship resistance is not an answer to “how big should the space allocated for arbitrary data should be” it’s a category error how much space for arbitrary data is a legitimate question. the space could be anywhere between 0 and 4 Mb. i agree the the essence of tbe issue is “how much space should be allocated for arbitrary data.” i agree the prior status quo was not good, because node/miner policy is not consensus. 21M for supply cap is importsnt becuase all people know the protocol rules are enforced. whatever the answer is for how much space is allocated for arbitrary data, it’s important in the same way that all people know the protocol rules should be enforcer. i’ve never used it, and have not hear anyone articulate why i would use it. I am completely open to being persuaded by the best arguments. Maybe your use case could help me understand if i’m missing something. how does allocating more space for arbitrary data serve you?