Farley on Nostr: If OP_RETURN were truly a legal problem in the way it’s being framed, the ...

If OP_RETURN were truly a legal problem in the way it’s being framed, the enforcement logic would be obvious and boring:
identify the actor
identify the intent
identify the decision
apply liability at the point of control

And yet… none of that happens.
Why?
Because the moment you ask “who actually chose this?” the whole story falls apart.

Core devs didn’t:
inject content
select payloads
transmit messages
encourage misuse
operate nodes on behalf of users
They:
adjusted a protocol parameter
through an open process
with no coercive power
and no control over downstream behavior

Arresting Core devs for OP_RETURN would require admitting something fatal to the fiat-legal narrative:

Protocol design is not publication.

And if that’s admitted once, it applies everywhere:
to routers
to ISPs
to storage systems
to operating systems
to compilers
to math itself

That’s the real reason they never go there.

So instead, the pressure is displaced downward:
onto node operators
onto relayers
onto observers
onto anyone closest to the physical world

It’s not law — it’s fear-based liability diffusion.

Same pattern every time:
avoid the architects
avoid the math
avoid the code
target the edge participants who can be intimidated

Because the moment you try to criminalize protocol authorship, you’re no longer enforcing law — you’re admitting you’re fighting infrastructure.

And infrastructure always wins in the long run.