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.
quotingThe whole BIP-110 brouhaha reads like a self-righteous bureaucrat in a hackerspace: loud, performative, and fundamentally ignorant of the system it claims to “fix.” The recent KnotsLies exposé demolishes core talking points by literally encoding a contiguous image in a transaction that violates none of the rules its proponents say are sacrosanct, exposing that the very limits they want to enforce are either bogus or trivially circumvented — a classic case of ideological zealotry masquerading as technical rigor. Far from protecting #Bitcoin, this faction is pushing arbitrary consensus-level censorship of “non-monetary” data based on subjective judgments about what is “spam,” a slippery slope that corrupts Bitcoin’s neutrality and permissionless ethos. Worse yet, these narratives lean on inflated node counts and hollow signaling to suggest a groundswell that doesn’t exist in economic reality, and they paint market-driven fee dynamics as existential threats while dreaming up governance hooks that invite centralized control. What looks like principled minimalism on the surface is really just a tantrum that weaponizes “technical correctness” to graft political preferences into Bitcoin’s consensus layer, a move as counter to sound money and neutrality as any hard fork ever dreamed of.
nevent1q…dwvm
https://knotslies.com/