[Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes?

The email discusses the issue of high network fees and how they can be disruptive. The sender acknowledges that spikes and valleys in transaction volume can cause instability that lasts longer than the mempool cycle can handle. They provide a link to mempool.space, which currently shows approximately 105,000 unconfirmed transactions and a memory usage of 795 mb out of 300 mb.

The sender then suggests comparing the bitcoin network's ability to process transactions to the task of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in managing the state's electrical grid. They mention the importance of noticing past trends and preparing for future growth in order to ensure the network's capacity is expanded and transactional costs are lowered. They propose that expanding the block size is the simplest way to achieve this.

The email includes a link to an article on Coindesk titled "Pump the BRCs: The Promise and Peril of Bitcoin-Backed Tokens." However, the content of the article is not mentioned in the email.

Overall, the email highlights the disruptive nature of high network fees and suggests expanding the block size as a solution to increase network capacity and reduce transactional costs.