Thanks for your respectful answer.
Likewise.
Now where I agree with you, it’s reasonable to talk and think about the legal risks surrounding node operators. Though in the present situation, the viewpoint expressed by the EFF’s FAQ about Tor nodes sounds appropriate, in my humble view.
Operating a Tor node is nowhere close to operating a Bitcoin node. I have already expounded upon my reasoning for this stance. I don’t think it is reasonable to ignore it as you have done.
Anyway, it was not acceptable in 2017 to argue that big blocks might not be harmful, and it should not be acceptable in 2026 to argue that embracing toxic data storage as an official use case of the Bitcoin network might not be harmful. It is basic common sense that if we limit candidate node operators only to those users who have no moral scruples, then we are dooming Bitcoin’s node network to a much higher degree of centralization than would otherwise occur (since such users are only a small single-digit percentage of all possible users).
Given that BIP-110 handily avoids all risks from embracing arbitrary data storage (since it is an explicit rejection of arbitrary data storage), while preserving all known monetary use cases, activating BIP-110 is basic common sense.