According to @BitMEXResearch, the current situation is looking increasingly like an attack on Bitcoin’s key censorship-resistance characteristics, as stated in its X post on Sep 25, 2025: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1971332742718832834. The post explicitly directs readers to Adam Back’s related discussion for context, indicating an active debate among Bitcoin leaders on potential transaction-level censorship: https://x.com/adam3us/status/1971330468961542213. For traders, the source frames elevated censorship-risk concerns around BTC’s core utility, warranting close monitoring of the referenced discussion for updates that could inform positioning and risk management, per @BitMEXResearch’s alert: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1971332742718832834.

According to @adam3us, Luke Dashjr and the Knots client plan to implement censorship technology directly, skipping the slippery slope steps he and @csuwildcat had warned about using legal citations from prior internet cases (source: @adam3us). He characterizes the Knots plan as adopting censorship tech immediately and grounds his warning in prior internet legal precedent he referenced (source: @adam3us).

According to @adam3us, the statement shared was: 'the tolerant minority sets policy limits.' Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 15, 2025, https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1967470931502383467 The post contains no mention of specific assets, price targets, catalysts, or timelines, providing no direct trading signal for crypto markets. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 15, 2025, https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1967470931502383467 It reads as high-level policy commentary without actionable trade parameters such as entry level, stop-loss, or timeframe. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 15, 2025, https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1967470931502383467

According to @adam3us, the cited X post contains no text or market data at the time of review, so no actionable trading signal can be derived from this update; Source: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1967278084769616209 on Sep 14, 2025.

According to @adam3us, an index compiling 200 Q&A explaining Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN was shared on Stacker News, with credit to @WalkerAmerica, and posted on Sep 13, 2025. source: Adam Back on X (Sep 13, 2025) OP_RETURN embeds small amounts of data in BTC transactions via provably unspendable outputs, and its data-carrier limits and standardness rules affect transaction size and fees. source: Bitcoin Core policy documentation; Bitcoin Wiki: OP_RETURN For traders, monitoring OP_RETURN usage can help interpret on-chain throughput and fee dynamics during periods of elevated data-carrier activity, aiding assessment of BTC transaction costs and miner-fee trends. source: Bitcoin Core fee estimation documentation; Bitcoin Wiki: OP_RETURN This curated Q&A provides a consolidated technical reference for understanding OP_RETURN mechanics relevant to transaction sizing, fee calculation, and indexing on Bitcoin. source: Adam Back on X (Sep 13, 2025)

According to @adam3us, he posted a metaphorical line about Bitcoin’s Merkle tree on Sep 13, 2025, without any price levels, metrics, or technical updates, indicating no new market-moving information in the post itself. Source: Adam Back on X https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1966891802826600742 For trading context, the post is sentiment-only and offers no on-chain data, regulatory developments, or protocol change details that would constitute a direct signal for position adjustments. Source: Adam Back on X https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1966891802826600742 The reference to the Merkle tree highlights a core Bitcoin data structure that secures transaction integrity, but the post provides no actionability on timing or catalysts for BTC traders. Source: Adam Back on X https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1966891802826600742; Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin whitepaper https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

According to @adam3us, highly technical people often lack media and political persuasion skills, so they can be correct yet appear to lose arguments to more assertive speakers, underscoring that perceived debate outcomes in public and policy discourse may diverge from technical correctness and should be interpreted carefully by market participants (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 13, 2025, https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1966839318422372533).

According to @adam3us, enforcing controls in any moderately programmable system via private key encoding is information-theoretically impossible, underscoring the durability of censorship resistance in crypto networks like Bitcoin for trading theses, source: @adam3us on X, Sep 13, 2025. He cites BitMEX Research’s prior "private key encoding" argument as the decisive refutation of "try harder" enforcement approaches, reinforcing that protocol-level restrictions cannot be reliably imposed or verified, source: @adam3us on X, Sep 13, 2025. For traders, this supports positioning that BTC’s on-chain mechanics remain resistant to key-encoding-based controls, shifting risk assessment toward off-chain factors rather than protocol enforcement, source: @adam3us on X, Sep 13, 2025.

According to @adam3us, he warned that enabling @lukedashjr, whom he describes as a '10th man' immune to peer pressure, will likely backfire on Knots promoters in a surprisingly short timeframe, signaling elevated governance risk headlines for BTC. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 13, 2025. For traders, this suggests monitoring BTC for headline-driven sentiment swings tied to Knots-related governance disputes and being prepared for rapid shifts in tone that can affect near-term positioning. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 13, 2025.

According to Adam Back, a wallet-level fee routing sketch would send the minimum network fee on-chain while directing the remainder of the dynamic fee to a 1-of-n multisig controlled by mining pools that reject JPEG inscriptions, with the goal of depriving pools that process such transactions of fee revenue, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025. According to Adam Back, he notes that implementing this without introducing new centralization risks is difficult, explicitly flagging centralization trade-offs in the approach, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025. According to Adam Back, the stated intent directly targets miner revenue distribution and transaction selection incentives in the BTC fee market by shifting fees toward inscription-filtering pools and away from pools that include those transactions, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025.

According to @adam3us, nudging miners with education, outreach to switch to pools that do not include image-style 'JPEG' transactions, and fee-backed economic lobbying could reduce their inclusion in BTC blocks, indicating a push for stricter pool-level transaction policies, source: Adam Back (X, Sep 5, 2025). A coordinated mining-pool policy directly changes block templates and which transactions compete for scarce block space, thereby influencing the Bitcoin fee market, source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide on Mining and Transaction Fees. Traders should monitor pool policy announcements, the share of blocks mined by pools that exclude such transactions, and median sat/vB fee levels as near-term catalysts for BTC on-chain costs and throughput, source: Bitcoin.org Mining overview; mining pool operator communications. A visible decline in these image-style transactions would be reflected in mempool composition and block contents, signaling potential easing of fee spikes that impact deposit and withdrawal costs for exchanges and users, source: Bitcoin.org Mempool and Fees documentation.

According to @adam3us, increased JPEG inscription activity on Bitcoin is pricing new users out of owning a UTXO and displacing economic activity central to Bitcoin’s value proposition, source: @adam3us on X, Sep 5, 2025. He states JPEG-related usage is extremely wasteful for Bitcoin blockspace even if it counts as economic activity, source: @adam3us on X, Sep 5, 2025. He adds such data should be stored on external services like Imgur or IPFS rather than on the Bitcoin blockchain, source: @adam3us on X, Sep 5, 2025.

According to Adam Back (@adam3us), the source of current on-chain spam is the JPEG industry—sellers and buyers—supported by VC funding, with miners earning an estimated $250 million per year from the associated fees, which he describes as a very rough estimate (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025). According to Adam Back, the path to prevail is to make economic sense and laser-focus on outcomes by addressing where the spam originates rather than actions that work against core objectives (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025). According to Adam Back, miners are among the beneficiaries of these fees alongside JPEG market participants and VC funding, highlighting the incentive structure around the activity (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025).

According to @adam3us, Bitcoin protocol rules are enforced by economic nodes while miners are service providers and cannot change protocol rules, a lesson underscored during the block-size wars. Source: Adam Back on X https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1963836435426885805. This means governance changes depend on node consensus rather than miner coordination, an important consideration when evaluating BTC network dynamics. Source: Adam Back on X https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1963836435426885805. For trading, the actionable signals he highlights are proof of work security, aggregate network hashrate, and the BTC price, which originate from real-world economics and can inform positioning. Source: Adam Back on X https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1963836435426885805.

According to @adam3us, Bitcoin miners are including 'spam' transactions and he directed readers to BitMEX Research’s article Removing Bitcoin’s Guardrails for context. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 3, 2025 https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1963388838350360694; BitMEX Research blog https://blog.bitmex.com/removing-bitcoins-guardrails/ For trading decisions, this draws focus to monitoring BTC fee rates, mempool backlog, and miner revenue sensitivity when miner transaction-selection practices face scrutiny. Source: Adam Back on X highlighting miner inclusion of 'spam' https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1963388838350360694; BitMEX Research blog providing referenced analysis https://blog.bitmex.com/removing-bitcoins-guardrails/

According to Adam Back, users often conflate what is desirable with what can be enforced by Bitcoin consensus or made incentive compatible, which leads to demands for changes that cannot realistically be implemented, source: Adam Back on X, August 31, 2025. For traders, this indicates that only protocol changes that are consensus-enforceable or aligned with participant incentives should be treated as credible catalysts for BTC, and scenarios reliant on unenforceable rules should be discounted in positioning and risk models, source: Adam Back on X, August 31, 2025. Portfolio assumptions should prioritize incentive-driven outcomes and consensus-enforceable rules, while de-emphasizing outcomes that depend on socially desirable but unenforceable interventions, source: Adam Back on X, August 31, 2025.

According to Adam Back (@adam3us), filters do not work and BitMEX Research has empirically shown, consistent with information theory, that such filters cannot work; source: Adam Back on X, Aug 28, 2025. For trading, this asserts that strategies or risk controls relying on filter-based enforcement in crypto systems carry inherent failure risk that should be accounted for in execution and operational risk models; source: Adam Back on X, Aug 28, 2025.

According to @adam3us, he shared a pro-Bitcoin message urging buying via a Bitcoin vs fiat meme video on X with a YouTube link on Aug 17, 2025, signaling a bullish stance on BTC; source: Adam Back on X, Aug 17, 2025. The post was retweeted by @paoloardoino, extending its visibility to his followers; source: retweet by Paolo Ardoino on X, Aug 17, 2025. For traders, this explicitly pro-BTC call from @adam3us is a clear positive sentiment input to monitor in BTC market discussions; source: Adam Back on X, Aug 17, 2025.

According to @adam3us, he thanked for 'cheap sats' and stated he 'bought the dip (BTFD)' on Aug 14, 2025; source: twitter.com/adam3us/status/1956106009274916896, Twitter/@adam3us, Aug 14, 2025. The post indicates he executed dip-buying in BTC but discloses no position size, price, or venue, which limits direct trade replication; source: twitter.com/adam3us/status/1956106009274916896, Twitter/@adam3us, Aug 14, 2025.

According to @adam3us, the earlier claim that the government is not buying BTC was a mis-speak, and @SecScottBessent clarified on X that "Treasury is committed to exploring budget-neutral pathways to acquire more Bitcoin to expand the reserve, and to execute on the President’s promise" source: https://x.com/adam3us/status/1956105373452013834 source: https://x.com/SecScottBessent. For trading, the clarification confirms an intention to pursue budget-neutral BTC accumulation for reserves, a policy signal directly relevant to assessing potential official-sector Bitcoin demand and headline risk source: https://x.com/SecScottBessent source: https://x.com/adam3us/status/1956105373452013834. Traders should track subsequent Treasury statements and @SecScottBessent updates for timing and mechanisms that could affect BTC spot liquidity, futures basis, and funding conditions upon implementation source: https://x.com/SecScottBessent.