The problem I see with the current OP_RETURN development is primarily the legal aspect. When large amounts of data can be stored in a single transaction, access to that data becomes extremely easy. Previously, when data had to be split across multiple transactions, you needed additional information to reconstruct it: you needed to know which transactions belonged together, in what order, and you had to actively assemble the content with a script. That acted as a natural barrier because it required effort, knowledge, and intent. Now, in the worst case, a single transaction ID is enough. One click in a block explorer, and the full content becomes visible. Even if it is only hex-encoded data, the legal situation is fundamentally different. The risk falls not just on the sender, but also on full node operators, explorer operators, and potentially even end users. That should be taken seriously.

Opening up the OP_RETURN limit introduces new legal concerns. Miners would be forced to regulate themselves more carefully and develop their own censorship rules to avoid liability. Since everything is propagated across the network, miners would still need to process spam to remain profitable, but they would also need centralized filtering mechanisms to avoid breaking the law. What‘s the bad part about the opposition?

„This year, block propagation has slowed down, because some transactions are missing from node mempools.“ That’s a disadvantage for miners who include transactions containing non-monetary data. If miners don’t include them, there’s no delay. So does this finally mean filters aren’t useless after all? https://fountain.fm/episode/0Co1Oyl10OjTEWXYjzxl

true, thats why we use bitcoin

Our debt-based financial system is not about creating wealth. It is about control. Debt steers people toward what benefits the lenders and creates a centralized system of control over others. It is a tool the rich use to shape the work and choices of everyone else.

Over the past years, Bitcoin has gradually increased in complexity through various upgrades. That have a lot of great features, but the downside of this trend is now becoming clear: new vectors for spam and unintended usage have emerged. Developers also face structural incentives to add complexity, because complexity requires ongoing maintenance and concentrates influence among those who are able to understand and control the expanding codebase. This is why it is crucial to closely observe and critically question new developments. It raises the question of why such a controversial change is being advanced without a clear understanding of its long-term implications. At the same time, parts of the Bitcoin Core community seem to have shifted away from Bitcoin’s original purpose as self-sovereign, decentralized money. The increasing alignment with ETFs, institutional custody models, and corporate treasury strategies risks shaping Bitcoin into something more centralized and easier to influence. For Bitcoin to remain resilient, it must stay simple, conservative, and focused on its core function: money that individuals can hold and validate themselves. Limiting spam and keeping the protocol lean is essential to preserve decentralization. For these reasons, I support the proposed soft fork.