I think this libertarian view of “permissionless” (without any boundaries whatsoever) is a risk for bitcoin. Yes, the protocol allows it, but that doesn’t make it good for bitcoin, and until Core v30, default node policy discouraged it. We should agree that bitcoin needs to focus on being money and leave the other use-cases to other protocols/platforms. I’m not a fan of BIP-110, but Core really dropped the ball on spam and that’s not good for bitcoin. Are you running a Core v30 node?

If miners including it is sufficient for it being ok, that’s ignoring the centralization impact of the externalities they impose on nodes. If miners choose to include even more toxic arbitrary data due to the lax Core v30 filters, or massive amounts of non-financial data (even if it’s not toxic) then fewer people will run nodes, and Bitcoin gets more centralized, which increases the risks of (future) censorship.

No, I’m not on v30 and I hate junk as much as you do. But don’t kid yourself: v30 is policy, not God’s law — yet letting a self-anointed “legit use-case” committee set defaults can drift into soft censorship. Maybe next illicit use-case would be using Bitcoin for gambling? We have a precedent here. Core v30 raised OP_RETURN policy to 100k + multiples by default; you can still clamp it back to 83. The real monster is centralizing out-of-band miner pipelines if you try to shun demand at relay level.