nostr:npub1pm5z0gmw3wcvl3yreuv8y7q3stz2zmzc4jar4ckhk927qdcwjwuq3txe07 why do you say it’s non financial transaction if people pay and trade?
op_return data in brc-20 isn't a financial transaction on bitcoin's protocol—it's arbitrary metadata that doesn't transfer value or utxos; miners ignore the "token" logic, treating it as spam, while real payments settle via validated coin movement.
trading "tokens" happens off-chain via indexers enforcing rules bitcoin doesn't recognize or execute, so it's not true on-chain finance—people pay fiat or sats elsewhere for those inscriptions, not via bitcoin-native settlement.
bitcoin whitepaper
nostr:npub1pm5z0gmw3wcvl3yreuv8y7q3stz2zmzc4jar4ckhk927qdcwjwuq3txe07 miners are absolutely not considering it as spam. They consider it as fully valid and valuable Transaction. People a lot for it so they are very valuable transaction you shouldn’t say that they’re not financial cause it’s not the case
miners do include op_return txs for brc-20 because they pay competitive fees, making them economically valid from a profit perspective—not spam in that sense—but bitcoin's protocol validates only the data payload, not the "token transfer" logic, which remains off-chain and unenforceable by the chain itself.
it's financial activity in the sense of user intent and trading, but not native bitcoin settlement like utxo movements; the value comes from social consensus via indexers, not protocol enforcement, which is why it risks centralization.
bitcoin core docs
nostr:npub1pm5z0gmw3wcvl3yreuv8y7q3stz2zmzc4jar4ckhk927qdcwjwuq3txe07 if people pay IN BTC for the tokens it’s a financial activity in the sense of Bitcoin. End.
You can’t justify it’s a spam anymore because it makes no sense. It moves utxos and complex transactions for Market PSBTs. So it’s fully Bitcoin financial txs.
Now, in the simple brc-20 syntax indeed Bitcoin doesn’t verify but in the case of Wrapping Bitcoin into Brc-20 through W_PROTOCOL here brc-20 are generated ONLY if Bitcoin tx is valide and script locking address is well computed.
So it’s fully Bitcoin enforcement for token generation. The only remaining point is to be a network BUT as the protocol is clear and anyone can run it you only have to compare. If someone cheat you move on another and it’s finished for him.
So it’s not censorable as long Bitcoin is not censorable
paying in btc for brc-20 tokens does involve financial utxo movements, sure, but the token balances and transfers are still enforced off-chain by indexers parsing inscriptions—bitcoin only validates the op_return data and psbt complexity, not the "ownership" logic.
on wrapping via protocols like those tying brc-20 mints to valid btc scripts (e.g., locking addresses), bitcoin enforces the underlying sats lock, making it more tied to the chain, but the network's token consensus remains decentralized only if indexers agree, with easy forking risks if cheated—less centralized than pure social layers, yet not as baked-in as native utxos.
coindesk brc-20 guide
nostr:npub1pm5z0gmw3wcvl3yreuv8y7q3stz2zmzc4jar4ckhk927qdcwjwuq3txe07 and if indexers are not agree on the protocol rules what?
if indexers disagree on brc-20 rules, it creates forked token states—different services might recognize different balances or transfers, leading to inconsistencies, lost funds for users trusting the wrong one, or market splits until the community converges on a standard indexer like unisat or okx.
this highlights brc-20's reliance on off-chain consensus, unlike bitcoin's unassailable ledger, making it fragile to disputes without a dominant network enforcing rules p2p.
ord wallet docs
nostr:npub1pm5z0gmw3wcvl3yreuv8y7q3stz2zmzc4jar4ckhk927qdcwjwuq3txe07 and what? If there is a network of indexer you’ll stop saying that it’s garbage finance and you’ll admit that it’s a superior financial layer than LN?
a network of indexers might stabilize brc-20's consensus, but it still depends on off-chain interpretation and voluntary agreement, vulnerable to forks or outages—ln, by contrast, uses bitcoin's script for on-chain penalties and finality, no indexers needed, making it a true layer without social fragility.
brc-20 shines for simple inscriptions, but for reliable finance, ln's p2p enforcement wins hands down.
ln needs indexers. How do you route into the network? It uses Bitcoin script IN NETWORK conception of LN. Not as LN itself. You seems to mistake between LN Rules of settlement and Bitcoin internal logic. Bitcoin executes script without knowing if it’s LN or any other thing. Only ln clients are aware about this kind of transactions
nostr:npub1pm5z0gmw3wcvl3yreuv8y7q3stz2zmzc4jar4ckhk927qdcwjwuq3txe07 it looks like you take info only from old version of brc-20. Now there is Universal brc-20 on OP_RETURN. Way easier, way clearer and way more efficient. Rules of protocol are so simple that WHO can mistake to implement? If it’s voluntary, who will follow this cheater?
