This is not about trap addresses, a.k.a. “burner addresses”. The stated goal implies a desire
to store arbitrary data, and
intentionally to defeat the purpose for which, after much debate, Core kept
OP_RETURN with output data as a less-harmful way to store arbitrary data.
Yeah but it all comes down to the fact that you can't enforce anything when something is an "opt-in" mechanism. Nice people might opt in but not so nice people don't have to and probably don't care at all the affects of their actions. Their actions probably do have affects. But they don't care about them.
Fair point, but there are many reason to use OP_RETURN such as
1. Less overhead compared with abusing bitcoin address which has 4 byte checksum.
2. Easier to use. On Electrum, you just need to convert text to HEX using online tools and type
OP_RETURN [HEX DATA], 0.
3. Many blockexplorer decode OP_RETURN output to text automatically.
The stated goal is intentionally to force poor people in poor countries who are desperate for sound money to store and process oh-so-precious-snowflake graffiti on their <$50 nodes forever and forever. In the UTXO set.
poor people in poor countries may not even have a computer. and i would think are less likely to be running nodes than people that are more financially well off. the poor people probably use an app on their phone when it comes to bitcoin. come on now.
It's limitation of P2P/decentralized system where you need to verify and store some/all data. But Bitcoin community already being conservative about cost of running node.