Are All Bitcoin Transactions Really Financial?

Just saw this site that claims to measure non-financial transactions in Bitcoin. They say some transactions aren't really about sending BTC but more about inscribing on the Blockchain. Kinda makes me wonder how they define 'non-financial'. Anyone got thoughts on this?

Yeah I think they’re counting everything, including OP_RETURN transactions, as non-financial. The way I see it, financial is like the typical BTC transfers, while non-financial includes stuff like ordinals and other data-messaging. Makes sense, right?

Right? But that OP_RETURN being the highest on their graph shows that a lot of these transactions aren't related to actual BTC movement. Just meta data and timestamps kinda stuff.

But is it really accurate to say that half of all transactions are non-financial? Seems like that could be stretching things a bit, maybe even subjective?

Classifying OP_RETURN as non-financial makes sense, but it still involves inputs and fees. So, are we really saying these transactions have no financial aspect at all?

Exactly. There’s fees for every transaction. If they’re calling anything without a direct BTC transfer non-financial, it feels misleading. That's just fear-mongering, honestly.

What’s the deal with over 50% of BTC transactions being classified this way? The ordinals hype seems to have fizzled out, so what’s filling in that gap?

Could be those Runes transactions. You know, the meme coins and token stuff? They’re everywhere. But I wish it was more about legit L2 projects instead.

Checked out ordiscan earlier. It shows ordinals and BRC transactions, but the OP site claims 50% non-financial? Doesn’t add up to me. Where are these OP_RETURNs coming from?

Try using mempool goggles on mempool.space. It gives a clearer picture. Most OP_RETURNs involve Runestones, not totally non-financial.

Just found out ordiscan doesn’t track rune transfers well. It’s more about mints. But mempool shows a lot of OP_RETURN transactions, some are clearly financial.

We already hear about 'tainted' vs 'clean' BTC. Now they’re throwing 'financial' and 'non-financial' around? This could just confuse the average user.

From what I see, there’s not a rush for runes now. If there was, fees would shoot up. They seem to be filling empty spots right now.

Lol, true. Most users won’t dig into all this nonsense. Like DaveF said, no such thing as a non-financial transaction. Every tx has a fee.

Can’t really say OP_RETURN transactions are purely non-financial. People creating them might have financial motives behind it.

How does tainted coin theory fit in if OP_RETURN has no spendable outputs? It’s all getting tangled up.

It’s a separate debate, but I get it. The whole financial vs non-financial thing feels like another way to complicate things.

But what even makes a BTC tainted? Seems like a bad classification to begin with. It's all just BTC honestly.

If I throw a dollar into the air for a pic, that’s still a financial act, even if I’m not intending to transfer it. It’s wild how we’re classifying these.

Exactly! Even if the aim isn’t a clear transfer, there’s still financial implications. We need to look at the bigger picture.