Addressing community concerns and objections regarding my recent proposal to relax Bitcoin Core's standardness limits on OP_RETURN outputs

The email presents a comprehensive argument against raising the opreturn limit within the Bitcoin network, emphasizing the importance of maintaining strict data size constraints to preserve the system's integrity and prevent abuse. The sender criticizes proposals for increasing the opreturn limit as misguided attempts to address issues related to the unspent transaction output set (UTXO set) bloat without considering the broader implications on network functionality and security. They argue that raising the limit would not solve the underlying problem but could exacerbate it by encouraging the proliferation of non-monetary transactions, which could lead to network spam and detract from Bitcoin's primary purpose as a medium of exchange.

The discussion includes a critique of Citrea's approach to scaling and their use of the Bitcoin network for purposes that were not originally intended or agreed upon by the community. The sender points out that such actions, including the embedding of large amounts of data in transactions, undermine the consensus mechanisms and could potentially harm the network by prioritizing private interests over communal goals. They emphasize the need for applications to adhere to established protocols and seek community consent before implementing changes that could impact the network's operation.

Furthermore, the sender refutes the argument that current filtering mechanisms are ineffective in managing spam transactions, highlighting that filters serve to increase the cost of abusive practices rather than eliminate them entirely. They advocate for a pragmatic approach to network management, recognizing the limitations of spam filters while stressing their overall benefit to the system's health.

The email also addresses the issue of UTXO set bloat, calling attention to proposals that have been overlooked or delayed by core developers, which could have mitigated the problem. The sender accuses proponents of removing opreturn limits of being disingenuous about their motivations, suggesting that concerns over UTXO set bloat are being used as a pretext for changes that would primarily benefit specific parties at the expense of the broader Bitcoin ecosystem.

Lastly, the correspondence touches upon the philosophical and practical considerations surrounding the inclusion of arbitrary data in the blockchain. The sender argues strongly in favor of prioritizing transactions relevant to UTXO ownership transfers over those containing extraneous information, warning that failing to do so could threaten the sustainability and purpose of the Bitcoin network. They conclude by advocating for a cautious and considered approach to protocol changes, urging stakeholders to resist pressure from entities with vested interests that may conflict with the collective good.