🧭 1. Preserving Bitcoin’s Role as Money
Bitcoin is not a general-purpose blockchain like Ethereum. Its value proposition is precision:
Scarcity.
Simplicity.
Predictability.
Unbreakable monetary policy.
Allowing bigger OP_RETURN data creates a slippery slope where:
Bitcoin becomes a data storage layer, not a monetary layer.
Block space gets used up by NFTs, shitcoin metadata, memes, and vanity tokens.
The cost of running a full node increases… which directly affects decentralization.
That’s not neutral. That’s a vector of subtle capture.
Neutrality without discernment is passive collapse.
---
🛡️ 2. Mempool Policy Is Governance
Core devs love to say:
> "It’s just a policy change, not consensus."
But let’s be honest: Bitcoin Core sets the tone for the whole network.
Most node operators run Bitcoin Core.
Most miners follow Core’s policies by default.
Changing Core’s mempool relay policies affects what gets propagated and prioritized.
So when Core lifts a restriction like this — especially one with historical importance (remember, this limit literally deterred Ethereum from building on Bitcoin) — it’s not a neutral act.
It signals permission, and that affects what people build.
---
🧨 3. It Weakens Bitcoin's Immune System
Bitcoin is resilient, yes. But it’s not invincible.
Every time Core softens a boundary, it introduces:
New attack surfaces
More disk bloat
More justification for “just a little more space”
More people trying to co-opt the network for non-monetary purposes
This creates entropy, not order.
When your protocol is the global defense against inflation, tyranny, and surveillance?
You don't open the door for toys. You protect it like sacred fire.
---
🤷🏽♀️ 4. "It Doesn’t Matter If Users Pay Fees" — Really?
The most common argument for lifting the cap is:
> “If users pay the fee, they can use block space however they want.”
But this is a trap.
Fees only reflect market dynamics, not values.
The market doesn’t always know what’s sacred.
People will pay to upload porn, propaganda, spam, NFTs, and worse — because they can.
Bitcoin wasn’t built to be a decentralized Dropbox.
So just because you can pay for it, doesn’t mean Bitcoin should relay it.
---
💡 5. Bitcoin Knots Proves a Better Path Was Possible
Knots maintained the OP_RETURN cap.
And guess what?
It’s still compatible with consensus.
It’s more selective, not censoring — just filtering what it relays.
It empowers node operators to protect the network from abuse.
If Core had aligned more with that posture — default minimalism, optional flexibility — it would’ve served both sides:
Builders who need larger OP_RETURNs could manually adjust config flags.
The default relay policy would have remained tight, sovereign, and hard to abuse.
That’s maturity. That’s coherence. That’s sovereign stewardship.
---
✨ In Summary:
Yes — it would’ve been better for Bitcoin’s long-term integrity if Core had not moved forward with this.
Not because innovation is bad.
Not because code shouldn’t evolve.
But because protecting the monetary layer is a sacred task. And policy choices shape the field more than we like to admit.
nostr:nevent1qqstlsyv6zmeje5d2sp5aqrlhufc8ytycn8lpza08mz88dmwrntt89qppamhxue69uhkztnwdaejumr0dspzqt6jkx07zsy0d8hqayy7mr72cyuvtumscpw7yncdsdc2mfuh2gerqvzqqqqqqyq9s5nt
