According to @BitMEXResearch, a Bitcoin transaction dated 5 Nov 2013 is identified as mined by Luke Dashjr, with a direct on-chain explorer link provided for verification, source: BitMEX Research; mempool.space. According to @BitMEXResearch, the shared reference points to transaction ID d29c9c0e8e4d2a9790922af73f0b8d51f0bd4bb19940d9cf910ead8fbe85bc9b for independent checks of the timestamp and related block, source: BitMEX Research; mempool.space. According to @BitMEXResearch, the post does not report any BTC movement, exchange deposit, or selling activity related to this historical item and serves as an attribution record only, source: BitMEX Research.

According to BitMEX Research, Bitcoin Knots and Bitcoin Core were largely written by the same developers, making Knots an ineffective protest client against Core. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 17, 2025. BitMEX Research points to its 2018 report Competing with Bitcoin Core, arguing that replacing Core is structurally difficult due to shared code and contributor overlap. Source: BitMEX Research, 2018. The comparison to the prior large blocker effort to 'fire Core' underscores governance cohesion across implementations, a context traders can use when evaluating BTC fork-risk headlines and client-diversity narratives. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 17, 2025. Net takeaway for BTC trading: narratives claiming Knots can displace Core lack technical basis per the cited analysis, informing governance risk assessment for BTC. Source: BitMEX Research, 2018; BitMEX Research on X, Oct 17, 2025.

According to @FarsideUK, Farside Investors posted the term OP_RETURN and linked to a BitMEX Research post on Oct 17, 2025. Source: Farside Investors on X and BitMEX Research on X. OP_RETURN is a Bitcoin script opcode that stores arbitrary data in transactions and makes those outputs provably unspendable, influencing blockspace usage and the UTXO set. Source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide and Bitcoin Wiki. Higher OP_RETURN usage increases average transaction size and can push fee rates higher, affecting short-term BTC transaction costs and miner fee revenue. Source: Bitcoin Optech Newsletter and Bitcoin.org fee market documentation. For trading, monitor mempool congestion and fee-rate bands to time BTC transfers and evaluate miner revenue sensitivity during periods of elevated OP_RETURN-driven activity. Source: mempool.space metrics and Bitcoin Optech analyses.

According to Farside Investors, the account drew attention to OP_RETURN by sharing a BitMEX Research post on X on Oct 17, 2025, without providing additional metrics in the post. Source: Farside Investors on X. The post links traders to BitMEX Research on X for the underlying OP_RETURN context and details. Source: BitMEX Research on X. OP_RETURN is a Bitcoin script opcode that embeds small pieces of data in provably unspendable outputs, which consumes blockspace and contributes to network load that traders track for fee risk. Source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide; Bitcoin Core documentation. When demand for blockspace rises, fee rates tend to increase as blocks fill, raising on-chain transaction costs and the fee component of miner revenue that can affect BTC settlement timing and costs. Source: Bitcoin.org Fee Estimation Guide; Bitcoin Core policy documentation. Traders should monitor mempool size and sat/vB fee bands to gauge potential changes in BTC transaction costs and settlement latency around OP_RETURN-related activity. Source: mempool.space data. For specific context on today’s reference to OP_RETURN, review the linked BitMEX Research thread to align trading decisions with any identified changes in usage patterns. Source: BitMEX Research on X.

According to @BitMEXResearch, claims that 100 extra BTC were minted are incorrect. Source: x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978906070832513130, Oct 16, 2025. @BitMEXResearch states that actually 100 fewer BTC were minted and referenced their related article for details. Source: x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978906070832513130, Oct 16, 2025.

According to @VitalikButerin, Greg Maxwell defends a principled commitment to freedom and open market-based resource allocation against the populist desire to censor the Current Hated Thing (Source: Vitalik Buterin on X, Oct 16, 2025). Buterin also referenced a BitMEX Research post by linking to x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978545931600511157 (Source: Vitalik Buterin on X, Oct 16, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, FTX, as a leveraged exchange, was supposed to match assets exactly to customer liabilities and not rely on a pooled set of high-risk assets to cover those liabilities. Source: @BitMEXResearch post on X dated Oct 15, 2025. This view aligns with the U.S. CFTC’s 2022 complaint alleging FTX and Alameda misappropriated customer funds and failed to segregate client assets, undermining one-to-one backing of liabilities. Source: U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, complaint filed Dec 13, 2022 (CFTC v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, FTX Trading Ltd., Alameda Research LLC). FTX Debtors’ Second Interim Report documented commingling and deficient records that left assets short of customer liabilities during the bankruptcy process. Source: FTX Debtors Second Interim Report by John J. Ray III, April 9, 2023. For trading, the clarification underscores that exchange counterparty risk can reprice quickly via wider basis and negative perpetual funding; in November 2022, BTC and ETH perps saw sharply negative funding and fragmented liquidity as exchange-risk perceptions surged after FTX’s collapse. Source: Kaiko research on post-FTX market structure and funding dynamics, November 2022. Traders can reduce exposure by prioritizing venues with independently verified proof of reserves plus liabilities, strict client asset segregation, and limited related-party exposures, which are core recommendations in global policy guidance. Source: IOSCO Final Report on Policy Recommendations for Crypto-Asset Service Providers, November 2023.

According to @BitMEXResearch, the team publicly asked where the market is in the current AI cycle if it mirrors the early-2000s tech bubble, signaling a focus on cycle-phase timing rather than issuing a trade call (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 7, 2025). The post provides no valuation metrics, timeframes, or sector-specific signals, so it should be treated as a prompt for market debate rather than actionable guidance (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 7, 2025). The post does not reference cryptocurrencies or tokens, so no direct crypto market impact can be inferred from the text alone (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 7, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, the team resurfaced material from a 2015 presentation, noting they have not seen Mike Hearn’s Bitcoin views stated this clearly for a long time and asking whether those views are coming back into fashion. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Oct 6, 2025. According to the source, the post provides no new technical details, price data, or trading guidance beyond posing this question about Mike Hearn’s Bitcoin perspective. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Oct 6, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, @boomer_btc’s view mirrors Mike Hearn’s earlier position that Bitcoin miners may prioritize the network’s long-term health over maximizing immediate next-block fee revenue when selecting transactions (source: @BitMEXResearch, Oct 6, 2025). According to @BitMEXResearch, this miner transaction-selection incentive issue has been debated endlessly within the community (source: @BitMEXResearch, Oct 6, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, an X post on Oct 6, 2025 stated one hundred and twenty six thousand politically managed United States dollars per developers are not good at politics bitcoin, indicating a critical stance on politically managed USD funding within the Bitcoin development context. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Oct 6, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, the post was retweeted by @FarsideUK, increasing the visibility of this governance and developer funding commentary to a wider audience monitoring BTC narratives. Source: Retweet note referencing @FarsideUK from the provided content on Oct 6, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, the post provided no further context, links, or program specifics and did not reference price or on chain metrics, limiting immediate quantifiable trading signals and framing this primarily as a sentiment data point. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Oct 6, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, 10.4% of peers connected to its two BTC nodes (124 peers each) are running Bitcoin Knots, up from 6.2% on June 23, 2025 (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 5, 2025). Using bitcoin-seeder, @BitMEXResearch measured 9.0% of discovered nodes as Knots and noted the tool likely excludes Tor by default (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 5, 2025). For traders, this reflects a +4.2 percentage point (+68% relative) rise in Knots share within a sample of roughly 248 peers, providing a current snapshot of BTC node client distribution to monitor for network trends (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 5, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, the account stated "Bitcoin is money" and linked to an official GOV.UK post on X on Oct 5, 2025, highlighting BTC’s monetary narrative for traders to review. Source: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1974771817136193574 and https://x.com/GOVUK/status/1821502879590494358 Before taking positions, traders should read the referenced GOV.UK message directly to verify whether it contains any concrete policy language regarding Bitcoin, as the tweet alone does not provide regulatory details or market data. Source: https://x.com/GOVUK/status/1821502879590494358 and https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1974771817136193574

According to @BitMEXResearch, Bitcoin (BTC) usage should be determined by the market rather than by implementing effective filters that exclude arbitrary on-chain data storage, indicating a pro-market transaction selection stance. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 1, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, the post amplifies Eric Lombrozo’s view that using filters as a social signal on your own Bitcoin node is acceptable, while pushing back on efforts to impose such filters on others. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X (Sep 30, 2025); Eric Lombrozo on X. For traders, this reflects active governance discourse around node-level filtering and censorship norms in Bitcoin, making BTC decentralization narrative and sentiment an area to monitor. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X (Sep 30, 2025). No protocol or network policy changes were announced in the post, indicating no direct mechanical impact cited for fees or throughput at this time. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X (Sep 30, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, the latest review of the OP_RETURN policy limit highlights tension because filter proponents are asking other node runners to degrade their own node performance at their expense to benefit the wider ecosystem, source: @BitMEXResearch, Sep 30, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, this frames a concrete trade-off between individual node efficiency and network-level filtering goals that directly affects how data-carrying transactions are relayed, source: @BitMEXResearch, Sep 30, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, traders should monitor any relay policy shifts around OP_RETURN filters as signals for potential changes in transaction propagation dynamics that can impact BTC execution timing and liquidity conditions, source: @BitMEXResearch, Sep 30, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, the post contrasts spam-deterrent relay filters with running blocksonly mode on Bitcoin nodes and asks whether blocksonly would deter all transactions, highlighting how node policy affects propagation and fee dynamics, source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 28, 2025. In Bitcoin Core, blocksonly mode disables inbound transaction relay from peers while still receiving and validating blocks, and locally created transactions can still be broadcast via other nodes, so it does not stop transactions from being mined network-wide, source: Bitcoin Core documentation. Bitcoin’s standardness and relay filters are designed to reduce spam and DoS risk by not relaying non-standard or too-low-fee transactions, which is a mempool policy layer distinct from blocksonly mode, source: Bitcoin Core policy documentation. For traders, relay policy and filtering primarily affect the fee market and confirmation latency, which change on-chain settlement costs and arbitrage timing for BTC, impacting spreads and execution risk during congestion, source: Bitcoin Core documentation; Kaiko research. Historical episodes of elevated mempool congestion and rising feerates have coincided with more volatile BTC basis and funding as settlement frictions increase, informing risk management for derivatives and spot-perp strategies, source: Glassnode research 2023–2024; Kaiko market reports. Actionably, monitor mempool size, median feerate and average confirmations as leading indicators of short-term BTC liquidity and withdrawal or deposit latency rather than assuming blocksonly adoption suppresses transactions across the network, source: Bitcoin Core documentation; mempool.space data.

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 @BitMEXResearch, the team publicly questioned whether Binance is about to delist ORDI and linked to an external discussion thread on X, elevating the topic to a trading-relevant headline risk. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 25, 2025. The post contains no official delisting notice from Binance, indicating the claim remains unconfirmed and should be treated as an unverified market catalyst. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 25, 2025. The author added that something positive could emerge from the debate, framing the situation as a near-term catalyst to watch for ORDI’s liquidity and volatility. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 25, 2025. Traders should closely monitor Binance’s official announcements and ORDI order-book conditions for any status changes or abnormal market behavior triggered by the discussion. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 25, 2025.

According to BitMEX Research, home “pleb” node runners who do not send transactions can sometimes influence Bitcoin by supporting looser policy rules, while they are largely ineffective at tightening policy rules. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 16, 2025. This view is consistent with Bitcoin Core documentation that policy and standardness are non-consensus, node-local rules, so transactions rejected by some nodes can still propagate and be mined if other nodes use looser relay policy. Source: Bitcoin Core Documentation, Policy, accessed Sep 16, 2025. For traders, this asymmetry means relaxations in relay policy can spread bottom-up without miner coordination, potentially broadening transaction relay and shifting mempool composition and fee dynamics that affect BTC on-chain costs and timing. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 16, 2025; Bitcoin Core Documentation, Policy, accessed Sep 16, 2025. Conversely, rapid community-driven tightening is less likely to be effective without adoption by miners and major relays, making miner policy signals and fee-rate curves key monitoring points for BTC liquidity and execution risk. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 16, 2025; Bitcoin Core Documentation, Policy, accessed Sep 16, 2025; Bitcoin.org Developer Guide, Fees, accessed Sep 16, 2025.