Tyler Burns on Nostr: I grew up in an Irish catholic family, married a catholic, and was married in a ...

I grew up in an Irish catholic family, married a catholic, and was married in a catholic church.

Your analogy is faulty and attempts to reframe things based on a strawman argument. v30 proponents never stated their argument was "well, people could already break in, so who cares, let's remove the fence."

It was/is all about comparative harm. This argument has been made countless times and to suggest you haven't heard it before means perhaps you haven't been paying attention. The "gate" wasn't just a leaky gate, it is actively directing activity to a far more harmful path. The entire existence of OP_RETURN came about to allow for provably unspendable outputs to avoid the UTXO set from becoming bloated. The OP_RETURN limit is actively harmful now due to the fact that it directs activity toward the UTXO set which increases the cost of running a bitcoin node (since every node must store the entirety of the set in memory). It also promotes the use of alternative relay networks such as Libre Relay (which is harmfully centralizing). Not to mention the fact that default relay policy should be as close to matching what actually ends up in a block or else it becomes difficult to determine what the fee market is and what the broader mempool looks like. Again, this has all been discussed before and pretending like v30 proponent's arguments were something otherwise is disingenuous.

A chain-split by any other name is still a chain-split.