> if Liquid...[used] opreturn...is that spam?
Yes, because in my opinion all op_returns with a data payload are spam
> A Metaprotocol by definition is written on bitcoin
Yes, but it does not necessarily occupy any extra space. For example, the RGB team designed their metaprotocol so that it can "piggyback" on financial transactions that were already going to happen anyway, and only *tweak* the fields in such transactions. That way, the extra data doesn't take up any extra space.
I don't consider that spam. If nodes were going to store the same amount of data anyway by storing the tx *without* tweak data, tweak it, by all means. Then your metaprotocol can have whatever features you want without counting as spam per my definition, because it doesn't increase the amount of data on bitcoin.
> Are you saying anything but a hash is spam
A hash can be spam too, but it depends. The bitcoin protocol supports hashes for things like htlcs. If a metaprotocol used the hash of an htlc that was already doing to happen anyway, and put their metaprotocol hash in it, that wouldn't count as spam in my book.
But if they created an htlc not because it was needed by a bitcoin tx, but because they wanted to put a hash on bitcoin for use in their metaprotocol and couldn't be bothered to piggyback, I would consider that slightly spammy. Though since it's only a hash in one transaction I would also consider it only *slightly* harmful.
Super Testnet
npub1yx…c399s
2026-01-16 16:01:26 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…3cwa
Author Public Key
npub1yxp7j36cfqws7yj0hkfu2mx25308u4zua6ud22zglxp98ayhh96s8c399sSeen on
wss://nos.lolPublished at
2026-01-16 16:01:26 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "25912c5edf6615fa7fbb6eea9f9152142821450e0eaaffdd566ce31e8ccb91bf",
"pubkey": "2183e94758481d0f124fbd93c56ccaa45e7e545ceeb8d52848f98253f497b975",
"created_at": 1768579286,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"alt",
"A short note: \u003e if Liquid...[used] opreturn...is that spam?\n\nYes..."
],
[
"e",
"90b9b9b300d0d02f44c517d9052f9e8d4468f81044d539eed3d5424600984fc5",
"wss://relay.snort.social/",
"root",
"2183e94758481d0f124fbd93c56ccaa45e7e545ceeb8d52848f98253f497b975"
],
[
"e",
"ec38ebb1d557fdb18832adfb180732bd72fef77b757006891fa0dc7f768d065a",
"wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/",
"",
"2183e94758481d0f124fbd93c56ccaa45e7e545ceeb8d52848f98253f497b975"
],
[
"e",
"6fb3e19507db430f7c59d135d34798dd4695125a8ca491d5337278b955cdb65a",
"wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/",
"reply",
"930ccef12372dd2f16057cfc54f0dbd94335d8b51b4e2737236b00cab718fcd9"
],
[
"p",
"aac07d95089ce6adf08b9156d43c1a4ab594c6130b7dcb12ec199008c5819a2f",
"wss://multiplexer.huszonegy.world/"
],
[
"p",
"2183e94758481d0f124fbd93c56ccaa45e7e545ceeb8d52848f98253f497b975",
"wss://relay.damus.io/"
],
[
"p",
"930ccef12372dd2f16057cfc54f0dbd94335d8b51b4e2737236b00cab718fcd9",
"wss://nostr.heliodex.cf/"
]
],
"content": "\u003e if Liquid...[used] opreturn...is that spam?\n\nYes, because in my opinion all op_returns with a data payload are spam\n\n\u003e A Metaprotocol by definition is written on bitcoin\n\nYes, but it does not necessarily occupy any extra space. For example, the RGB team designed their metaprotocol so that it can \"piggyback\" on financial transactions that were already going to happen anyway, and only *tweak* the fields in such transactions. That way, the extra data doesn't take up any extra space.\n\nI don't consider that spam. If nodes were going to store the same amount of data anyway by storing the tx *without* tweak data, tweak it, by all means. Then your metaprotocol can have whatever features you want without counting as spam per my definition, because it doesn't increase the amount of data on bitcoin.\n\n\u003e Are you saying anything but a hash is spam\n\nA hash can be spam too, but it depends. The bitcoin protocol supports hashes for things like htlcs. If a metaprotocol used the hash of an htlc that was already doing to happen anyway, and put their metaprotocol hash in it, that wouldn't count as spam in my book.\n\nBut if they created an htlc not because it was needed by a bitcoin tx, but because they wanted to put a hash on bitcoin for use in their metaprotocol and couldn't be bothered to piggyback, I would consider that slightly spammy. Though since it's only a hash in one transaction I would also consider it only *slightly* harmful.",
"sig": "23d7b8885d9723eafe17cb7c78b2717b2d56b0fafcee653cd4f22dec15e29a998932d72316064a1e1c3b489fe84ffc14278d3ef2f62f3b91d93de2cd2f8a0b10"
}