According to some comments elsewhere, this is due to the relaxing of the consensus rules in the Bitcoin protocol that has been ongoing in the late years
This was true for the first Ordinals wave in March/early April. However, unfortunately, the BRC-20 fad has another character. They are relatively small transactions of 300-400 bytes each, but there are a LOT of them.
So even if the devs did what you (and other Ordinals critics, and IMO you do have a point with that) proposed and limited the Taproot script size, the BRC-20 transactions would not be affected.
By the way, BRC-20 is the
most idiotic token protocol I saw on the blockchain (more on that
here). There are already around 20 token protocols for Bitcoin, starting with coloured coins like EPOBC in ~2012, and Counterparty and Omni (home of the original Tether) being the most popular.
BRC-20 stores a small JSON text in cleartext(!) on the blockchain, and even due the way Ordinals work they need
two transactions to create a token! So there's a lot of overhead and they're actually wasting a lot of money with the only reason being to use a "ordinals-based" protocol.
If they were simply using Counterparty or Omni, or even better, RGB or Taro (which are beta still, afaik) then they would waste
much less space and fees.
So this is what I think about BRC-20:
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8WsTL2t.jpeg&t=671&c=dHPF3ifVuo_VcQ)
I don't know if even a double facepalm is enough ...