Why do you speak of it as decided that data storage in the Blockchain constitutes abuse?
It's abuse because you're
forcing others to download/store your data against their free choice.
Every full node must download the full blockchain (prunable or not!).
Every full node has consented to download and store
financial transactions.
NOT every full node has consented to store anything else.
You need 100% consensus for this, not merely some subset (ie, not miners; not developers) or even a majority.
Furthermore, everyone is free to store data that isn't in the blockchain.
There is nothing to be gained by putting it in the blockchain
except that you force it on those who don't want it.
Explain how this is anything
but abuse...
Whether you think there are better implementations than the current one is not the problem, but rather that you are making a protocol change for something that miners are, by design, supposed to decide for themselves, and acting autocratically over Bitcoin.
Miners are
not supposed to decide protocol changes any more than developers.
Protocol changes, in general, require consensus of the economic majority (or, more practically, "will this person I want to pay accept my forked-blockchain bitcoins?").
Wait a minute when was it decided that:
Every node has consented to store X type data and not Y type data. Maybe I also did not consent to store transactions for Laundered money, illicit drugs and weapons, human slavery - etc.
You're basically negating protocol neutrality and deciding what the Protocol
Should and
Should Not be used to store, and
More than that you aren't speaking in first person but using the pronoun
Us given the impression that you are speaking for all miners or protocol users as a whole.
So what started out as a Democratization of currency - turns out to tightly controlled by an autocratic group who takes for itself the role of speaking for all the users of the protocol - in your own words:
Explain how this is anything but abuse