I'd have no problem if this particular problem is "fixed". However, the bigger inscriptions were only a problem for a short time in early 2023. Since then the focus has shifted to BRC-20, which is also the topic of this thread by the way, and BRC-20s were "compliant" to script size rules established before. In other words, for tokens like BRC-20, the "lifting" of the size limit in Taproot is irrelevant. This was also extensively discussed here.
That's true but they are still exploiting the protocol in the same manner regardless of what size they occupy (the same OP_FALSE OP_IF exploit) to
inject an arbitrary size data into the chain.
I'm genuinely asking to learn. - But couldn't developers already store arbitrary data within the blocks if they wanted to before Segwit? I remember there was a marriage certificate "in the blockchain" and other arbitrary data.
There is an
accepted method of storing arbitrary data in transactions through OP_RETURN that is limited to 80 bytes and is also easily pruned from the UTXO set since they are provably unspendable. Other methods are not acceptable and are damaging like creating an unspendable output that can not be purged from the UTXO set so it remains there forever.
It might be a very dangerous path because, who is "we", and does "we" speak for the whole community?
The same "we" that has been deciding what can or can not be done up to the Ordinals Attack!
For example the same "we" that didn't allow you to inject an arbitrary data as that dummy item that is popped from the stack in the OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) op codes.