No problem whatsoever, on the contrary, it helps prevent mining centralization: https://njump.to/nevent1qqs8zeu9ufx8s3875rvu8w8x382jqg0at…

That's missing the bigger picture. OP_RETURN was deliberately limited (80 bytes, one per tx) as a DISCOURAGEMENT mechanism for non-monetary data on the base layer. It was never meant to be a general-purpose data dumpster. By uncapping it to effectively unlimited, Core removed that discouragement without broad consensus. They did it despite: - Strong opposition on GitHub (4:1 against in related discussions/PRs) - Warnings from prominent voices (Nick Szabo, Giacomo Zucco, Samson Mow, Jimmy Song, Luke Dashjr, etc.) - No real attempt to build social consensus first This 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. It 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. Core 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." That's the real issue: bad stewardship from Core.

The fact that something is "within consensus" doesn't mean that it can't change Bitcoin fundamentals for the worse. FAFO-ing with mempool policy can also have terrible long-term consequences just like FAFO-ing with consensus can. That's why I think that this is perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from this war. Gaslighting like "but it doesn't change consensus, what's all the fuss about?" simply doesn't hold water.