Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

Not all bitvm transactions transfer values on L1, and not all of them use HTLCs > do you consider it a spam if a Metaprotocol is demonstrating that exact soft fork It is spam imo if and only if the metaprotocol's transactions add more data to bitcoin than would otherwise be there, data with a purpose other than the ones outlined in my definition. There's nothing wrong with simulating a soft fork in a metaprotocol, imo. But if, in service of demonstrating that feature, you use bitcoin as a text dump for your metaprotocol's data, that's spammy.

↑ Parent

Replies (2)

Nuh 3 weeks ago

I am not sure I get the distinction... So if Liquid didn't create a sidechain and instead just wrote blocks in the opreturn of a linked list of transactions on Bitcoin is that spam? A Metaprotocol by definition is written on Bitcoin, otherwise it is a sidechain or Spacechain or a Spiderchain or whatever. If I am trying to black list misbehaving members of a dynamic federation, it makes tons of sense removing the DA question from the equation. Another factor is showing the demand of these advanced smart contract evident on block space fee bidding. Are you saying anything but a hash is spam, or are you saying inconsiderate unnecessary bloated formatting would be spam?

1 replies ↓

Super Testnet 3 weeks ago

> 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.

1 replies ↓