Relax OP_RETURN standardness restrictions

In the ongoing discussion regarding Bitcoin development, Martin Habovštiak addresses Jason's concerns by referencing a mailing list thread that debates the effectiveness and consequences of implementing patches to Bitcoin's code. This thread highlights the rejection of certain proposals due to various reasons already discussed, thus emphasizing the complex nature of Bitcoin's development process. The thread also contains links to further information, which Habovštiak chooses not to duplicate in his message.

The debate touches on the historical context of SegWit (Segregated Witness) and its implications for Bitcoin's block size, which was anticipated to potentially increase to 4 MB. This change, proposed around the time between 2015 and early 2017, was seen as controversial but necessary by some, including Habovštiak, who supports the SegWit discount despite it necessitating a hard fork if removed at this juncture.

Habovštiak also counters the argument against what Jason refers to as "nonstandard" transactions. He explains that inscriptions and similar transactions adhere to the standardness rules within Bitcoin's network, arguing that there is no practical reason to limit transactions that are inherently more costly and could lead to the bloating of the UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) set if restricted.

Furthermore, he critiques the previous whitelist model of transaction approval, which was limited to types blessed by Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin's mysterious creator. He favors the current model, which does not require lobbying for transaction inclusion, though he acknowledges disagreement within the community, citing Luke Dashr's proposal to revert to the earlier model.

A significant technical concern raised by Jason about the storage of consecutive byte sequences is addressed by linking to a GitHub pull request comment (GitHub PR). Here, it is explained that the mempool and blockchain are encrypted at rest, mitigating the risks associated with data injection into the blockchain. Habovštiak reassures that the proposed changes do not exacerbate existing threats and suggests that those lacking confidence in Bitcoin Core's developers could contribute to or maintain a fork, such as Knots, offering a more constructive outlet for their skepticism.