Relax OP_RETURN standardness restrictions

The discussion highlights a critical perspective on the role of Bitcoin Core in the governance and policy-making aspects of Bitcoin, emphasizing the need for neutrality and the avoidance of acting as a governance body. The debate centers around the OP_RETURN operation and its implications, but at its core, it questions the influence of Bitcoin Core on consensus and standard practices within the Bitcoin network.

One point raised concerns the enforcement of policies by Bitcoin Core that may reject certain valid transactions, such as non-flagged Replace-By-Fee (RBF) transactions, underlining the argument that policy engine influence should be removed from consensus-critical infrastructure to maintain true neutrality. This stance challenges the idea of Bitcoin Core as a gatekeeper, suggesting instead that user-configurable settings should not be argued over within what is defined as "Core."

Furthermore, the issue of mempool fragmentation is discussed, with the claim that it results from disharmony, complexity, and policy change rather than the inclusion of specific transaction types like inscriptions. It’s argued that adding explicit data use cases to OP_RETURN won't stop users from employing other methods for encoding data due to various motivations, including censorship resistance and the emulation of "first-seen" behavior. This suggests that alternatives to current encoding options will not eliminate fragmentation but will exist alongside them, driven by incentives and distrust.

Another critical aspect covered is the potential for Taproot witness data to be made pruneable, raising questions about the relevance of the UTXO pollution argument and whether concerns over this issue are becoming moot.

The conversation also touches on the broader implications of Core's actions, accusing it of acting as a de facto standards body and thereby exerting a form of governance outside of consensus. This behavior is seen as a centralizing force, contrary to the decentralized ethos of Bitcoin. The argument extends to suggest that policy changes by Core, especially those affecting transaction relay or validation, should generally be opposed unless they arise organically from genuine consensus or configurable downstream distributions.

In conclusion, the message asserts the importance of decoupling policy from protocol and resisting unilateral rule-setting by any group within the Bitcoin ecosystem. It reflects a disappointment in the utility, scaling, and impact of Bitcoin rule changes to date, beyond block space increases, underscoring a broader critique of governance and policy evolution in Bitcoin.