This really exposes a much more important issue about where the Bitcoin 2.0 crowd stands versus the Bitcoin crowd. There seems to be an unreasonable amount of ill will towards people building on top of the blockchain, regardless of if they are paying their fee's or not. Not to mention that if bitcoin is going to work it's going to need to scale to an enormous volume anyway- so it's not like the problem won't need to be solved at some point.
Despite what one holds as their ideal model for Bitcoin, the economics are what matter. I thank Peter Todd for highlighting this just as he did in earlier discussions about OP_RETURN. My understanding of reading those previous discussions is that people will continue to use this hacky multi-sig storage method because it's cheaper, until it isn't.
That games were played with OP_RETURN size does not build confidence in Bitcoin's development and perhaps the uncertainty it shows can explain why OP_RETURN isn't more widely implemented.
Keeping the protocol data agnostic and instead focusing on the economic incentives is clearly the way to practical block chain size and maximum utility. We're just now starting to get to what level of fees will be supported by markets in blockchain-based storage, XCP, MC, and payments and only those economics will tell us what makes sense to put in the Blockchain.
