Relax OP_RETURN standardness restrictions

The discourse on the potential removal of datacarrier behavior/options from Bitcoin's architecture reveals a nuanced understanding of its implications on the network. The concern arises from a hypothetical scenario where an individual supports the centralization of the network for various reasons, including incentivizing direct miner submission, slowing block propagation, and encouraging the creation of 'fake addresses' outputs. This stance, however whimsical it might seem, underscores the broader debate on how certain changes could impact users who might not fully grasp the consequences yet.

Peter Todd's engagement with the community through forums has shed light on the misconceptions surrounding this issue. He reports that the notion of harm coming from these changes is largely based on misinformation. Specifically, the argument that these modifications support "non-monetary (ab)uses" of the Bitcoin network and would lead to its increase is challenged by Todd. He suggests that such claims do not hold up under scrutiny, indicating that the motivations and anticipated effects presented by critics do not align with reality.

Furthermore, Todd's interactions suggest that the narrative positing the change as a product of "bitcoin core" favoring non-monetary uses is baseless. His discussions in forums have yet to reveal any substantial evidence that anyone would be adversely affected by the change. Instead, what emerges is a picture of misinformation leading to unfounded fears among some users. This dialogue highlights the importance of clear communication and the need for thorough understanding before forming opinions on technical updates within the Bitcoin ecosystem.