The
reason OP_RETURN transactions are valid is to allow people to store data in the blockchain.
And it is heavily criticized because of what it offers.
The only valid utility I see for OP_Return is when it is used for colored coins, for example Tether where it treats the OP_Return data as a script and by executing that script it can transfer its token from one address to another all built on top of bitcoin. Although that is still parasitic and spammy...
I don’t think it is appropriate to try to regulate how people should use bitcoin. That really goes against the ethos of why bitcoin was created, at least in my opinion.
If you don’t want people to be able to add arbitrary data in OP_RETURN transactions, you should create a BIP that makes these transactions invalid.
I think we both know such an altcoin would not give the same authority that the message is unchanged as bitcoin would.
Then it proves that this feature is not something people want or care about.
That is obviously not true, people have been including random data in the blockchain for years. I am saying a cryptocurrency whose sole purpose is to store arbitrary messages is not going to have value.
I would also point out that if OP RETURN transactions could not include data, people would start sending minimum output amounts to vanity addresses that send some kind of message. This would both increase the blockchain size and the UTXO set.