If this proposal goes through, everybody is free to:
1) Fork Bitcoin Core, change the default values for OP_RETURN back, and continue to maintain the -datacarrier feature (which allows to limit the size of data put in OP_RETURN outputs, but not the data stuffed into fake public keys!).
2) Use another Bitcoin implementation, for example Luke-jr's Bitcoin Knots. That's what many critics of this PR are doing, and this is completely okay!
People often misunderstand Bitcoin's consensus model by comparing it to democratic systems, like elections, where one person equals one vote. But Bitcoin doesn't work that way. In reality, it's more like a lobbying system -- those with the most influence can effectively dictate the outcome, regardless of what the majority of users or even nodes want.
In regards to this particular issue of op-return limits to me it is very simple. I am not a coder but as I understand it
the nodes currently have the option to raise or disregard the op-return limit. So if a node wishes to validate non-monetary
data they are free to do so by simply raising or discarding the op-return limit. That is how the nodes cast a "vote" so to speak.
Is it possible to know the number of nodes running with the strict limit in place versus those that have raised or discarded the limit?
So assuming the majority of nodes are currently running with the strict data limit in place, then it seems to me certain people or certain devs
who are pro-spam don't like the outcome of the anti-spam "vote" so decided to unilaterally change the code so they can no longer "vote" at all
(via the op-return limit). In other words, force them to abandon any limits whether they like it or not.
By "vote" I mean in the sense of number of nodes running with the strict data limit in place vs those that are not.
For the sake of simplicity let's call it the pro-spam nodes vs. the anti-spam nodes.
That seems like a much more productive and much less disruptive method of voting then taking the drastic step of a hard fork.
if worse to comes to worse, Bitcoin Knots would be the solution.
Someone mentioned the devs having incentive to please
Bitcoin is about having choices, not being told by an unknown shadowy "robust group of individuals" that decides what is good for us.
It is insulting and condescending.
I outlined the best possible scenario! The reality is the group of people making the decisions is quite small. Here's the thing though: if they make "bad" decisions, people will move away from the network. So the Core maintainers are incentivized to make good decisions that are supported by more miners & community than not. Its not "insulting and condescending" so much as the way things have
always been.
One would hope the devs are motivated by good intentions. But anyone can be corrupted or coerced by money.
Over time a group of humans tends towards corruption. Because humans crave money and, they can always be corrupted.
Bitcoin was created so we we don't have to hope or trust the intentions of anyone including the devs and the miners.
Bitcoin is TRUSTLESS so we don't have to trust anyone, especially not any individual or group of individuals.
When we place our trust in individuals we are following into the trap of the corporate top-down model.
Humans always have the tendency to place their trust in a leader. If that is the case then bitcoin has no reason to exist
if we are just going to let it devolve into the corporate top down model of control with a few at the top calling all the shots.
Bitcoin as a concept of TRUSTLESSNESS was invented to break us free of that age-old model of TRUST.
Bitcoin is a revolution and a radical change from the status quo. The status quo will always be opposed to revolution
and will do anything they can to crush it.