Relax OP_RETURN standardness restrictions

The discussion opens with a clear stance on the definition of a cease-fire, positing it as a period wherein no attacks occur. This segues into a broader conversation about the implications of eliminating OP_RETURN restrictions in blockchain technology. The argument put forth suggests that removing such restrictions could potentially deter individuals from encoding data in more harmful ways, despite acknowledging that spammers might continue to occupy block space if they deem the cost justifiable compared to non-spammers.

Further examination touches upon the economic and technical impacts—or lack thereof—of certain blockchain decisions, drawing parallels between Ethereum, Algorand, and Solana. Specifically, it challenges the notion that Ethereum's launch as a separate chain was influenced by technical or economic factors, suggesting instead that similar motivations led to the inception of other chains like Algorand and Solana. The discourse underscores the general principle that brevity in coding and data encoding is preferable, although it acknowledges exceptions where data can be disguised as normal financial transactions or encrypted to evade detection until after publication.

The conversation then pivots to the topic of transaction fees and block subsidies within the context of blockchain operations, using ordinals and runes as examples to illustrate the fluctuation of fees per block. It highlights the affordability of transactions at a certain fee level, which supports everyday transactions like purchasing coffee. However, it also raises concerns about scenarios where high-value transactions might dominate the blockchain, necessitating either an increase in block size to accommodate all transactions or more sophisticated engineering solutions to manage the volume and cost of transactions effectively.

Lastly, the dialogue emphasizes the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of storing data outside the blockchain, particularly for legitimate use cases. It argues that eschewing inefficient designs and unnecessary engineering efforts can lead to higher profit margins, while scams and fraudulent activities are only sustainable until potential victims become aware of such schemes. This perspective suggests a pragmatic approach to blockchain development, prioritizing efficiency and practicality over the pursuit of speculative or malicious endeavors.