So is this about Bitcoin or about judging the 'others' who don't think like 'us'

Ok, there ya go. We've arrived together at the Truth. It is censorship, and that's the point of it. Thank you. I don't disagree that we need to adjust things. A discount for witness data doesn't seem appropriate anymore. However, you do want the censorship, you don't just want to keep the transaction propagation costs away from your personal node. You want the dominant implementation to be on your filtering configuration to effectuate censorship. You want to effectuate censorship of some 'bad' transactions. That's a bit awkward for anarchists to swallow, to say the least. It's not inaccurate to say this, as established. There's no threat to Bitcoin from these transactions. It's about costs and paying them for things you don't approve of. You don't want the network to pay, for your node to cost more for things that you don't approve of. Bitcoin isn't what you approve of it being. It is what it is. It is what we make it. It isn't only what it was intended to be. It isn't a Constitution. It's alive. It becomes what we make it. I look forward to a world where it eats everything. Every title, every payment, every major legal document or contract. Why not? Technically, not morally. Why, technically, could we not? Are we not preparing for millions of tx per sec on lightning? Oh are we afraid of the little government man who wants to hassle us for some garbage data on our nodes? Defend yourself. Bitcoin shouldn't have to shapeshift to protect you.

You do realize that's exactly what we have now: "A single organization dictating what my mempool should look like." If we stop filtering by DEFAULT (PLEASE READ THIS WORD) and let everyone do what they want, then no one person or implementation of filters or set of nodes is going to dictate anything, where our current implementation of DEFAULTS (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT WORD IN THIS SENTENCE) is precisely a single dominant organization setting up the policy that blocks some transactions from propogating without back channels. These transactions are financially viable. People demand them, god help them.

It's a bug fix. It's not a big change. We have created two different mem-pools. This is a bad outcome and needs a bug fix. It forces developers to hack around and find private and privileged access to the mem-pools they need. Users will have to go through centralized companies to get this access for themselves, to use these apps. Instead of these apps being decentralized and serving the politics of Bitcoin they will be centralized and serve standard politics. You've stopped nothing, you've only made things harder for everyone. Present and future node operators and developers and users.

I don't see any single difference to Bitcoin itself from allowing the OP_RETURN to store more data except that if we don't allow it we are more likely to be less utilized now and in the long run and perhaps the world builds on other rails in the decades to come. Don't we want to be more utilized? People are so selfish about their current node costs or their current transaction costs. Eventually we need to pay enough fees to secure the network from attack as our security subsidy ends.

Did you read my post? You're free to do what you want, you don't get to make CORE write the code to do it.

I was under the assumption that they were always going to need this to dollarize and it's a huge win to actually get it without giving up something, like in an agreement with the IMF who would want assurances about x, y, z. Which is always an anchor on the economy and the country which ultimately dooms these nations to repeat bankruptcy.

If the result wasn't censorship of these transactions, then you wouldn't want to do it.

It's more about the default. Defaults matter. You can roll your own node software with a small change to the main repo, in your own repository, no one is even trying to stop you. What people are trying to stop is the DEFAULT being relaxed because defaults matter and make up a large amount of the market. Pressuring Core who are also free and independent and not working for you or your specific interests, to maintain a default because you like it, even when there are externalities and costs and long term downsides for Bitcoin because you disapprove of the content that would be permitted once the defaults are relaxed is kind of censorship isn't it? Wanting a governing body to maintain a definition of what is spam and what isn't is exactly the type of thing Bitcoiners should be digusted by and fight against.

You're setting up a straw man, do you realize? There's no such thing as censorship within a decentralized network. Every node does what it wants to do and doesn't by itself have power. The RESULT is very similar, if there are defaults set up in a reference implementation or if enough nodes do this. So the people who maintain that reference implementation have to think about the result of their filters in aggregate. Not simply on that one node that's running the software. You are just running a node, but they have to consider the aggregate. Because it results in censoring these transactions when enough nodes don't propagate them. Back channels are required to get around that emergent censorship of these valid transactions. If the RESULT of these filters, given enough nodes implementing them, is a censoring of them from the mem-pool, other than using a black-market for transactions, then where would we say this censoring is coming from? It's obviously right that it's not censorship for you to do this in your node configuration, but it also is very similar in result to censorship in the end. If the major implementation of our nodes is maintaining a feature that results in censorship, that is similar enough to a government managing policies about what we can do on Bitcoin, for me. I don't like it.

So he's still at large, but they got his Bitcoin?

They could try more to stop it, but also, they can't stop us all. I can run other models that would also do this, offline, on my own hardware.

The Socialists of South America continue to be hostile to Capitalism. They're wrong too. Just because it sounds good, doesn't make it good.

Well yeah... who would borrow (short) Bitcoin? Financing (especially government financing) will always be using fiat money and the dollar is 1000x better than what they have. I am hopeful for the people of Argentina, still. This is improvement and a huge win as far as I see it, in getting the financing without the anchors of international watch-dogs with liberal woke agendas.