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.

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 @BitMEXResearch, Bitcoin (BTC) does not follow the path of least resistance unlike the US Dollar (USD), a market-structure contrast highlighted in an X post on Sep 12, 2025 and referencing @cguida6’s analysis thread; source: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1966416409811964098 and https://x.com/cguida6/status/1965525597683060979.

According to @BitMEXResearch, Fork Monitor is now running Bitcoin Libre Relay 29.1 and is also running Bitcoin Knots 0.29.1 and 0.14.2, source: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1966238432889549228. The nodes page lists these client versions as active for BTC monitoring, source: https://forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc. The post contains no alert about chain splits, outages, or price guidance, indicating an informational update on monitored node software, source: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1966238432889549228. For trade execution and settlement checks, market participants can reference the nodes page to verify the client versions underpinning Fork Monitor data when tracking BTC network conditions, source: https://forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc.

According to @BitMEXResearch, the account questioned whether Eric Balchunas is saying Parmalat S.p.A. has no utility and provided links to a Financial Times article and Balchunas’ X post for context, with the post published on Sep 10, 2025 (source: x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1965842006846194106; source: ft.com/content/1f923c44-bd4c-11e0-89fb-00144feabdc0; source: x.com/EricBalchunas/status/1965551321031000561). The post contains no price data, forecasts, or trading guidance, and serves as a reference point highlighting a terminology dispute referenced by the author (source: x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1965842006846194106).

According to @BitMEXResearch, a coin being started as a joke is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for having no utility, indicating that origin narratives alone should not drive crypto trade decisions (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Sep 10, 2025). According to @BitMEXResearch, traders should assess tokens on demonstrable utility and adoption rather than dismissing them purely for meme origins, aligning trade filtering with utility-focused criteria (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Sep 10, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, a new BitMEX Research blog article titled Dapps or only Bitcoin transactions: the 2014 debate revisits the 2014 discussion on whether Bitcoin should prioritize decentralized applications or focus on simple payment transactions, providing historical context for current market narratives (Source: BitMEX Research blog; Source: BitMEX Research Twitter). For traders, the post offers primary historical framing that can inform how BTC-focused transaction utility narratives compete with broader dapp narratives during market rotations and dominance shifts (Source: BitMEX Research blog). The publication signals renewed attention to BTC programmability, Layer-2 design, and scope, which are themes that often coincide with shifts in BTC narrative momentum and relative performance versus dapp ecosystems (Source: BitMEX Research blog; Source: BitMEX Research Twitter).

According to BitMEX Research, the account publicly urged Gemini and co-founders Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss to read a referenced book before participating in a BSV/Calvin Ayre conference (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 4, 2025). The post explicitly references BSV (BSV) and Calvin Ayre, tags @Gemini, @tyler, and @cameron, and includes a link to the book for context (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 4, 2025).

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, Bitcoin is already censorship resistant, with encoding channels remaining porous via Taproot and fake public keys. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 2, 2025. He also contends that even BitMEX Research's so-called detectable kill-shot private key encoding becomes undetectable in the limit, urging critics to drop the censorship narrative. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 2, 2025.

According to BitMEX Research, Prof. Richard Werner said on Vlad Costea's Bitcoin Takeover Podcast that Bitcoin could reach $1,000,000. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 29, 2025. He also warned of a high risk that an early built-in death switch could be used to switch Bitcoin off and expropriate holders. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 29, 2025. These remarks frame BTC with both an extreme upside target and an existential protocol risk, as relayed from the interview. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 29, 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, older Bitcoin transaction filters were size based, while Luke aimed to implement heuristic content-based checks inside script, source: @adam3us on X, Aug 27, 2025, twitter.com/adam3us/status/1960721222368469036. @adam3us adds that such content-based filtering is trivially bypassed and represents an unwinnable arms race, which BitMEX Research demonstrated, source: @adam3us on X, Aug 27, 2025, twitter.com/adam3us/status/1960721222368469036. For traders, this indicates policy-driven attempts to curb specific transaction patterns are unlikely to be durable, so assumptions about blockspace constraints should not rely on heuristic filtering effectiveness, source: @adam3us on X, Aug 27, 2025, twitter.com/adam3us/status/1960721222368469036.

According to BitMEX Research, Bitcoin did not trade anywhere near $122 in 2012, with the year’s peak around $13, correcting misinformation seen in circulating charts (source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 27, 2025). Independent historical datasets corroborate a ~13 dollar high for BTC-USD in 2012, confirming the corrected level (source: Yahoo Finance BTC-USD historical data for 2012). For traders, using the correct ~13 dollar 2012 peak instead of 122 dollars lowers the base by roughly 9x, materially affecting CAGR, drawdown, and long-term trendline backtests and any cycle models anchored to that year (source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 27, 2025; Yahoo Finance BTC-USD historical data for 2012). Update datasets, dashboards, and fair value bands that reference a 2012 ATH to prevent distorted signals and risk limits in strategy evaluation (source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 27, 2025; Yahoo Finance BTC-USD historical data for 2012).

According to @BitMEXResearch, they constructed a Bitcoin (BTC) transaction with a single 15-of-15 P2SH multisig input and one output, measuring 1.69 KB in size (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Aug 26, 2025). The post states that 14 of the 15 private keys are intentionally vulnerable and can be calculated from on-chain data, and those 14 keys together encode a 439-byte JPG image (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Aug 26, 2025). This on-chain demonstration highlights concrete key-derivation risk and data-embedding behavior that traders can factor into BTC custody, wallet infrastructure choices, and chain analytics monitoring (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Aug 26, 2025).

According to BitMEX Research, the team created a Bitcoin (BTC) transaction that embeds an image within deliberately vulnerable private keys, making those keys computable solely from data available on the blockchain and allowing the image to be reconstructed from on-chain information, Source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 26, 2025 (link in post). According to BitMEX Research, they describe the image as “unstoppable” because its reconstruction relies on private keys that can be derived from the blockchain rather than off-chain storage or standard script fields, Source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 26, 2025 (link in post). According to BitMEX Research, the post shares the transaction and technical details for verification of the method, Source: BitMEX Research on X, Aug 26, 2025 (link in post).

According to @BitMEXResearch, Satoshi Nakamoto emphasized that paying a higher fee lets users outbid others to get included, reinforcing Bitcoin’s pay-for-priority mempool dynamics; source: @BitMEXResearch tweet dated Aug 19, 2025. Traders should expect faster confirmations for BTC transfers with higher fee rates during mempool congestion and slower settlement for low-fee exchange deposits and withdrawals, impacting execution timing and arbitrage; source: @BitMEXResearch. This fee competition can increase the share of miner revenue from transaction fees during busy periods, a signal traders monitor alongside mempool pressure and exchange deposit latency; source: @BitMEXResearch.

According to BitMEX Research, the team is highlighting the re-emergence of rhetoric similar to the past 'large blocker' debate and clarifies it is not a judgment that prior large blockers were wrong nor that current adopters are wrong, source: BitMEX Research on X/Twitter dated Aug 17, 2025. For trading, this statement functions as narrative context rather than a directional call, implying a neutral near-term signal for BTC positioning with no explicit fork or protocol-change claim in this update, source: BitMEX Research on X/Twitter dated Aug 17, 2025. The reference to 'large blockers' points to the historical Bitcoin blocksize dispute documented by BitMEX Research, offering context but no immediate market catalyst in this post, sources: BitMEX Research book The Blocksize War 2021 and BitMEX Research on X/Twitter dated Aug 17, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, some current rhetoric compares Bitcoin Core to the Chinese Communist Party, but the present situation is very different from the historical Blocksize War (source: @BitMEXResearch). @BitMEXResearch added that during the blocksize debate, Bitcoin Core, BitcoinXT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Knots were mostly written by the same contributors, highlighting overlapping development rather than a clean client split — a distinction BTC traders should factor into governance-related risk assessment (source: @BitMEXResearch).

According to @BitMEXResearch, 124,000 United States dollars per Bitcoin (BTC) is explicitly highlighted in a post on August 14, 2025 (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Aug 14, 2025). The post pairs the USD/BTC figure with the terms Nasdaq, stablecoin, crypto, treasury, and bubble, marking 124,000 as a referenced level within a cross-market context that traders can note (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Aug 14, 2025).