user78: From this post:

Our beloved Satoshi is on record that he doesn’t think it appropriate
  to embed data willy-nilly in the block-chain

Is this claim true? If so, why did he object?
I don't think it's "wrong" in any sense to embed data in the blockchain, because you're essentially paying for it. Since the protocol allows it, it is a legitimate service.

user516: I can't answer your questions about whether it's true and why.
It's possible that he would've taken that stance because sensitive information could be put into the block chain. Consider the consequences if some of the following examples were included in the block chain (and thus stored on every PC running the client):

Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks
Illegal pornography
The name of someone who has name suppression granted by a court
The private key for an important encryption algorithm (eg this one)

While some activities making use of Bitcoin may be illegal in themselves in some countries, storing data such as the above in the blockchain would create additional legal problems in many countries.

user403: He supported IsStandard, but he was not against small amounts of arbitrary data. Satoshi said:


why not make it easier on everyone and just allow say, 64 or 128 bytes of random data in a transaction?

That's already possible.  <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG.  <pubkey> can be 33 to 120 bytes.
I also support a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data.  There's no point not having one since you can already do it anyway.  It would tell nodes they don't need to bother to index it.

He always promoted putting hashes in the chain instead of the arbitrary data itself, though I don't know whether he was strongly opposed to the latter.

78: <p><a href="http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-second-bitcoin-whitepaper/" rel="nofollow">From this post</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Our beloved Satoshi is on record that he doesn’t think it appropriate
  to embed data willy-nilly in the block-chain</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is this claim true? If so, why did he object?</p>

<p>I don't think it's "wrong" in any sense to embed data in the blockchain, because you're essentially paying for it. Since the protocol allows it, it is a legitimate service.</p>
 516: <p>I can't answer your questions about whether it's true and why.</p>
<p>It's possible that he would've taken that stance because sensitive information could be put into the block chain. Consider the consequences if some of the following examples were included in the block chain (and thus stored on every PC running the client):</p>
<ol>
<li>Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks</li>
<li>Illegal pornography</li>
<li>The name of someone who has name suppression granted by a court</li>
<li>The private key for an important encryption algorithm (eg <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this one</a>)</li>
</ol>
<p>While some activities making use of Bitcoin may be illegal in themselves in some countries, storing data such as the above in the blockchain would create additional legal problems in many countries.</p>
 403: <p>He supported IsStandard, but he was not against small amounts of arbitrary data. <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2162.msg28549#msg28549">Satoshi said</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <blockquote>
    <p>why not make it easier on everyone and just allow say, 64 or 128 bytes of random data in a transaction?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>That's already possible.  <code>&lt;pubkey&gt; OP_CHECKSIG.  &lt;pubkey&gt;</code> can be 33 to 120 bytes.</p>
  
  <p>I also support a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data.  There's no point not having one since you can already do it anyway.  It would tell nodes they don't need to bother to index it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He always promoted putting hashes in the chain instead of the arbitrary data itself, though I don't know whether he was strongly <em>opposed</em> to the latter.</p>
