Chris,
I’d like to say thanks for your answer but you are mischaracterizing my points, getting emotional, ascribing intentions and in the end are not even able to engage with the arguments presented. I’m not interested in further entertaining barstool demagoguery, if you came here only to repeat recycled slogans without substance you could have kept it on Twitter. In fact, i’ve had (multiple) more constructive exchanges there than this.
Nobody’s saying that tightening standardness rules wouldn’t impose JPEGers some marginal (and temporary) cost in the form of having to re-build their tools on top of private APIs or alternative p2p relays to the Bitcoin Core one. The point has always been that with such demand for these transactions 1) the costs are ludicrously small and 2) the nudge to use direct submission to miners is an additional unnecessary mining centralization pressure. Bitcoin Core as a project has always put significant work into addressing mining centralization pressures. So you can build up strawmans and yell at them all you want, i am confident the project will continue to treat this as a primary concern in the interest of all users of the Bitcoin network.
Nobody’s proposing to change standardness rules to accommodate Citrea or any other side system. Their design works fine for them today, with or without your (or my) blessing. The point is to rectify the perverse incentive to use forever-unspendable outputs unnecessarily created by Core’s standardness rules. I’m aware that you love this strawman so i’m sorry to break it up to you: Citrea’s usage itself has never been the primary concern. It was only insofar as it is a manifestation of the perverse incentives which need to be rectified and as it’s always some potentially created forever-unspendable outputs that we are better off not taking. Another argument that was later brought up is that since large miners already mine these transactions, Bitcoin Core should relay and include them in block templates by default.