I was wondering if, due to the fact that most modern operating systems and music tools support them nowadays, that if remix bitpacks are allowed to use .flac files for samples?

One of the main advantages of the FLAC codec is the fact that it does lossless audio compression, roughly half of the original .wav file without losing any quality or fidelity from the original sample unlike .mp3, .ogg, .aac, etc.
This can kinda be used as a workaround of the 7.5mb bitpack limit we have now and might allow people to make bigger remix bitpacks for example.

Still, i wonder if there are any objections when it comes to this. I feel like there might be something said about legacy audio programs (along with a few chiptune software like Furnace and Famitracker) only supporting .wav files along with how there might be a potential for abuse towards this (for example somebody intentionally submitting a really low quality 20 minute long .flac render as a troll)

I would be in favor of using .flac files in remix bitpacks!

I make most of my remix entries in Furnace, sometimes the bitpack contains .mp3 files but in this case I use VLC to convert all the samples at once to .wav files, so this isn't a problem. As VLC also seems to support conversion from .flac to .wav I think it's all right!

flac isn't disallowed or anything, nor is mp3 (which has seen ample historical use too), but imo wav is maximally preferable due to being the most usable. everything takes wavs, and starting out a battle converting the bitpack just feels bad. but if you reaaaally needed the space or something go for it

I also thought about this before. I ended up deciding to stick with .wav mainly because I know some people do still use programs without flac support.

for OHBs I think smaller bitpacks are usually better anyway, although it could be useful for a 2hb or 4hb, or if you wanted to include something like a long atmospheric field recording.

So my opinion would be: stick to wav if you can, but flac could be OK for edge case situations.