Honestly, I can't help but stand on the sidelines and just see fallacy after fallacy in arguments.

The BIP-110 proponents don't claim that the change will stop spam (or non-standard txs). It's as clear as day. So arguing that you can still put non standard data onto the blockchain is just arguing with yourself.

At the same time, all the proponents that cite all that BS about how there will be illegal content on the blockchain are NOT helping. They are indirectly saying "BIP-110 will stop spam". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I get the "this will signal that Bitcoin is not for spam" argument. The OP_RETURN **extended** limit has literally no use case that is financial. Even that one coin-joining protocol that relies on OP_RETURN works with the smaller limit. So extending the limit is obviously sending a signal of "we want you to experiment with this". If it is not for spam, then it is backwards. You usually find a problem and solve it, not change something and find a problem it can fix.

The other stupid fallacy is something I know about having just been observing passively so I feel like all BIP-110 proponents know this and all non proponents also know this: yes, the change in core is not a removal of the OP_RETURN limit, but that does not change the fact that removal of the limit WAS discussed and WAS in the roadmap. We don't just pretend that this was not part of the original plan just because it didn't happen yet. 

nostr:nevent1qqszgr28e8tctzfvnv36cw7y7umjz3j3rsc6tvc5325fxjd4zj3pheqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9zs7rw003k4y2wltea360yuj46y5md9d4yt0mt06rfx96fdgpm7grqsqqqqqpzgdwvm