This problem is not with the soft fork. This is an issue that will never interest the miners, who are the actual group that matters, into adopting it.
It's a radical proposal against many taproot proposals that have historically been abused, but it's also a vanity proposal in that it achieved very little and isn't worth taking any risks on.
Let's see a quote from the proposal's GitHub;
Won't spammers just spread their data over multiple fields?
While it is impossible to fully prevent steganography, limiting data sizes ensures such abuses are non-contiguous and obfuscated within another intended meaning (script code, structure, etc). As far as Bitcoin is concerned, the data has some meaning other than the spammers' misinterpretation, and any external code to "reassemble" the unintended data is responsible for producing it (it is possible to write code that transforms *any* data into any other data - what matters is that Bitcoin has a well-defined meaning that is distinct from the unsupported one). Requiring users to divide their files into chunks of at most 256 bytes, raising the cost both in fees and in effort, sends a clear message that data storage abuses in general are unwelcome rather than sanctioned or supported.
So why should the bitcoin network go through an intentional fork when the proposed solution solves nothing and is mostly symbolic?
Politically speaking understand that a more radical proposal couldn't get as much traction. LukeJr has managed pushing through with Knots by letting others justify the message over what seems a just cause.
I just wonder why these people won't go further. Do we want BTC to be a medium of exchange in a peer to peer fashion? Making spam a tad bit more expensive isn't solving the problem by its root. The root is how limited the block space is. If spammers really want to clog the chain it's much cheaper for them to do on 1MB+1vMB blocks than let's say a dynamically adjusted block size that will eat spam for lunch while allowing transactions to go through normally.
Computers and internet infrastructure of today are already light years ahead of 2013. Even a decentralised network like BTC can take a 5x increase in node size and tx capacity. Let's talk another 5x in a few years too, maybe 5 years this time instead of 13.
Let's have both the spam protection as well as bigger and dynamically adjusting block space.
I've yet to hear a good refute on this. Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andersen were essentially ousted from the Core development over theirs support of something that seemed to make perfect sense even then. Why won't some people just admit they were wrong and move on? It's been a decade.
