m0053 on Nostr: This is an extremely good and level headed rebuttal to Maxwell's post. The part in ...

This is an extremely good and level headed rebuttal to Maxwell's post. The part in the first paragraph about the new attack surface is key in my opinion.

quoting
nevent1q…h8es

Maxwell claims that spammers don’t use OP_RETURN, so lifting the limit wouldn’t increase spam. But this is misleading. The limit itself prevents certain types of spam. Removing it creates a new attack surface. The fact that miners currently prefer the witness space or fake outputs is due to existing limitations... change the rules, and behavior changes. The mere existence of limits shapes incentives.

He argues that “price-sensitive spam” is already filtered out by fees, so there's no need for limits. But this ignores the long-term externalities of non-financial bloat. Spam isn’t just about cost... it’s about degrading the signal of legitimate financial activity and increasing node operational costs. Just because something pays a fee doesn’t mean it belongs on a system designed for monetary transactions.

He criticizes fake outputs for bloating the UTXO, and claims OP_RETURN was meant to fix that, but then argues for removing limits on OP_RETURN. This is incoherent: the whole reason OP_RETURN was added with a limit was to keep metadata off-chain or at least minimized. Allowing arbitrary data completely undermines this principle.

He states that major miners already ignore the OP_RETURN limit, so it doesn’t matter. This is a poor justification. Miners ignoring a protocol rule is not a reason to codify the violation... it’s an issue to be addressed. This reasoning effectively invites further erosion of protocol standards in the name of convenience or profit.

He equates any filtering of non-financial data to censorship, which is technically and ethically misleading. Bitcoin nodes filter transactions all the time (e.g., invalid signatures, oversize blocks). There’s a fundamental difference between censoring legitimate financial transactions and filtering out non-financial bloat. Bitcoin is not a free-for-all file hosting service.

He claims this proposal is “minutia” and won’t affect users, but earlier admits it could negatively affect block relay speeds, small miners, and mempool consistency. These are not minor concerns... they relate directly to decentralization and fairness in mining. You can’t claim the impact is negligible while also outlining its systemic risks.

Rather than focusing solely on technical merit, Maxwell repeatedly appeals to the poor treatment of Core developers and the “disproportionate” response. While abusive behavior is unacceptable, it does not shield a proposal from critique. Technical decisions must be judged on impact and logic, not on the tone of public reaction.