the logic that you are going to introduce a special op code to store data so they won't abuse UTXOs is ridiculous in my opinion.
It is basic rationale. Action reaction. If you don't let them use Ordinals in their inefficient way, they'll probably find an even less efficient way to do it. Storing in the UTXO set is probably their last resort, but it can be done, either in a standard way (sending 546 sat dust), or in a non-standard way (sending 1 sat dust after agreeing with mining pools). You can't stop people from using Bitcoin as a cloud storage, you can only discourage them to an extent through transaction fees. i want them to make standard transactions so that they cannot be differentiated from any other ordinary transaction that is an actual transaction. so it needs to be in the utxo set. if they're not willing to put it into the utxo set then i'm not really a fan of them storing any type of data, except grudgingly with OP_RETURN since it puts a strict limit of 80 bytes on it.
Quote from: DooMAD
As long as we're clear that you also can't have it both ways.
You either support a blockchain where users will initiate a witch hunt to stamp out any transactions they don't approve of (and either trust or hope that they never disapprove of the transactions you make). As a consequence, you'll then be leaving the door wide open for governments and regulators to apply pressure to stamp out the transactions they don't approve of (and again hope that doesn't include your transactions).
i want a blockchain where every single transaction is treated the same exact way and no one knows what its purpose is. and no one cares. therefore, they should all be in the UTXO set. and then I won't have any problem. i'm not sure why people complain so much about the size of the UTXO set. the blockchain is way bigger than the UTXO set so if they can store that then they can surely store the UTXO set too. if they don't have enough RAM then maybe bitcoin can be rewritten to take advantage of not needing to store the entire UTXO set in RAM all at once. but that's not a reason to complain about the UTXO set size, if there's a technological problem or algorithmic issue about how the UTXO set is stored, processed and used by software then it's a software problem.
Quote
-OR-, you can support Bitcoin as it stands, where no one is in a position to dictate what other users can or can't do with their transactions.
i wouldn't want a transaction of mine to not be in the UTXO set. so I never really thought very much of OP-RETURN but I grudgingly accepted it. but it really doesn't have a purpose other than to try and persuade people to not use the UTXO set for some of their transactions. I don't like someone telling me what type of transaction to do. Because I want my transaction always being stored by everyone. So it needs to be in the UTXO set. And in my opinion all transactions need to be in the UTXO set. There shouldn't be any special transaction type that says "i'm just for storing data so you don't need to keep me in the UTXO set and if you want to prune me, go right ahead." I'm not going to let someone do that to my transaction. 
Quote
Know that if you pick the former and take action to enact it, you'll be splitting the current Bitcoin userbase. I, for one, absolutely won't follow such a grotesque and 'nimby'-ist blockchain. It's an absolute prerequisite for me that censorship is not a factor. I simply won't accept it. I hope that others here feel the same because they understand what a travesty the alternative would be. Although, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if such users were dwindling in number, as forum users generally nowadays seem to be more ignorant and less appreciative of what we have and why it works this way. But there should be enough of us who see sense to continue on our current path.
It's a matter of principles and I get the distinct impression ours don't align. It looks like you have some obstacles to overcome in order to get what you want, because I'm certainly not giving up what I already have. Censorship-resistant freedom.
It's a matter of principles and I get the distinct impression ours don't align. It looks like you have some obstacles to overcome in order to get what you want, because I'm certainly not giving up what I already have. Censorship-resistant freedom.
if some people wanted to use OP_RETURN out of respect for the UTXO set then that was always their perogative. Use it as much as you want! But don't ask me to do it. I can do whatever I want and I don't want someone telling me to use OP_RETURN so that my transactions are not kept by all miners. I'm not going to volunteer to have my transaction data pruned by people who only care about making a buck...but I don't think you and me are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to this issue. It's just that maybe we don't understand how the other one feels about the background of ordinals and how they came to be and under what circumstances that came to be allowed. I still don't understand if they meant for people to be able to hog up an entire block with a single transaction OR NOT. If that's what they meant then they should have said so.
Because obviously some people haven't gotten that memo.