One justification for removing the OP_RETURN policy limit is that arbitrary data is “unstoppable” and will always find its way onto the blockchain. At the same time, not all data vectors have the same costs:
- OP_RETURN outputs do not bloat the UTXO set and are easy to ignore during validation.
- Taproot inscriptions and BRC-20 tokens have already added tens of gigabytes of data and roughly doubled the UTXO set in under two years.
- Fake addresses and weak signature schemes can also carry payloads, but at the cost of long-term validation burdens.
If the goal is to accept that arbitrary data will exist, wouldn’t removing the OP_RETURN cap unintentionally incentivize users to choose the cheapest or most fee-discounted methods, even if those methods cause more harm to node operators? Shouldn’t policy try to steer arbitrary data demand toward “least harmful” outputs like OP_RETURN instead of treating all vectors equally?
