The issue is that all of that data still winds up in Bitcoin. Op return isn’t even the cheapest place to put it, it’s just historically the least harmful place to put it (that’s why it exists). All of this fork discussion is basically a debate about which bucket to put spam into, since there isn’t a proposal on the table to materially reduce spam or materially increase the cost of the cheapest method to spam. That’s why I didn’t bother to talk about it over the past year. And I’d see tweets regularly tagging me asking why I’m not talking about it, people claiming it’s the biggest thing and I’m not talking about it (it’s not the biggest thing. I had little reason to talk about a fork with low consensus that doesn’t materially reduce spam.) I have people emailing asking me if Bitcoin is going to die if a fork that just mildly re-arranges where spam goes doesn’t pass (because they somehow think it stops spam, and its leading proponents have called spam an emergency in need of a rapid fix). Then I’m asked about it on a podcast. So I explained that it’s not an emergency, the fork doesn’t materially stop spam, it comes with some trade-offs, bitcoin is fine, it’s always worth exploring ways to optimize bitcoin for the future, etc. Then I get dozens of replies from fork proponents asking if I’m compromised, why do I like spam, why don’t I want to stop spam, etc. Most of them (not all) have playground-grade ad hominems attached as well. It’s mostly not their fault though; they’ve been whipped into a frenzy by people saying if they don’t pass this fork then bitcoin dies. I support people trying to fork if they want to. Bitcoin needs market tests once in a while. But if people ask me my opinion about this fork’s technical merits, the marketing around it, or its probability of becoming consensus, I’ll give my opinion.