It is possible (perhaps probable) that there will be future protocols that would want to store more than 160 bytes of data in an OP_RETURN. If the limit was only increased by the amount necessary for the current protocols, we’d likely have to have this whole argument and debate all over again several years in the future. Frankly, most developers are not interested in participating in that, so it’s better to just get it all over with once, now, rather than having the discussion be a perpetual topic.
Doesn’t removing the cap entirely risk normalizing on-chain data storage in a way that undermines Bitcoin’s monetary focus?
Given that inscriptions enable more data to be stored on chain for less monetary cost than OP_RETURNs, if on-chain data storage were normalized in a way that undermined Bitcoin’s monetary focus were the case, then it was already done by inscriptions. OP_RETURNs wouldn’t change that.
