According to @BitMEXResearch, Bitcoin Core’s attempts to curb full-RBF via policy filters failed and were reversed by the network, indicating client defaults could not override miner and node preferences (source: BitMEX Research on X). According to @BitMEXResearch, efforts to impose a minimum relay fee filter also failed and were subsequently dropped in favor of network behavior, highlighting that fee propagation is dictated by market participants rather than Core settings (source: BitMEX Research on X). According to @BitMEXResearch, attempts to block large OP_RETURN data similarly failed and were rolled back, reinforcing that Bitcoin’s transaction policies are ultimately set by the network’s will, not centralized governance (source: BitMEX Research on X). According to @BitMEXResearch, traders should frame execution risk around mempool-driven dynamics—RBF usage, relay fee preferences, and miner policy signaling—since fee volatility and confirmations follow network incentives, not Core filters (source: BitMEX Research on X).

According to BitMEX Research, Rare Pepe assets on Bitcoin use the OP_RETURN field to record a URL to the image rather than embedding the image itself, meaning only the reference is on-chain while the media is off-chain (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 21, 2025). BitMEX Research cited transaction 0c6e1608c64ab0bad80d3435449ef347c3b6d4048869ee51f2c647c50d0d2337 on mempool.space as an example of OP_RETURN-based metadata used in Rare Pepe trading (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 21, 2025; source: mempool.space transaction page). For traders in BTC NFT markets, this indicates due diligence should focus on verifying the on-chain OP_RETURN URL and related issuer data rather than expecting image payloads to be stored on-chain (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 21, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, individual non-economic relaying nodes can significantly influence Bitcoin when they loosen relay policies, whereas attempts by such nodes to tighten relay policies tend to matter less for network behavior (source: @BitMEXResearch). Bitcoin Core defines standardness and relay policy rules that govern which transactions are propagated, so looser relay increases the set of transactions reaching mempools and miners, directly linking relay policy to transaction propagation and inclusion chances (source: Bitcoin Core policy documentation). For traders, changes that broaden relay can alter mempool composition and feerate competition, impacting short-term BTC confirmation probabilities and fee volatility to monitor during intraday execution (source: Bitcoin Core mining and mempool documentation). Practical signals include tracking mempool size and median feerates on public explorers to detect propagation shifts that affect execution costs and timing (source: mempool.space dashboard).

According to @BitMEXResearch, they clarified that they are not alleging the new business idea referenced by Bob would engage in transaction censorship, addressing confusion from a prior post; source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 20, 2025, x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969464566418382977 and x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969009980591206538. According to @BitMEXResearch, the new business Bob alluded to may benefit from a weaker Bitcoin P2P transaction relay network; source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 20, 2025, x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969464566418382977. According to @BitMEXResearch, there is a campaign to push relay nodes toward a tighter policy than transactions that are regularly mined, and if highly successful this could weaken the transaction relay network; source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 20, 2025, x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969464566418382977. According to @BitMEXResearch, OCEAN, where Bob is a board member, is part of that campaign, though OCEAN could also do positive things such that its net impact could be positive; source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 20, 2025, x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969464566418382977. According to @BitMEXResearch, the referenced email thread focused on this relay-policy campaign; source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 20, 2025, x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969464566418382977.

According to @BitMEXResearch, its new report on The Growth of Bitcoin Merge Mining examines the prevalence of multiple OP_RETURN outputs inside BTC coinbase transactions and frames the debate over whether such data should be considered spam or legitimate merge‑mining metadata (BitMEX Research). According to the Bitcoin Developer Guide, coinbase transactions are constructed by miners, bypass mempool relay policies, and may include arbitrary data, while OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable and still count toward block weight (Bitcoin Developer Guide). According to BIP141, Bitcoin’s block weight is capped at 4,000,000 weight units, so additional coinbase data reduces available capacity for fee‑paying transactions and can tighten the BTC fee market during congestion (BIP141). According to Bitcoin Core policy documentation, standardness rules govern relay but not consensus validity, meaning miners can include non‑standard elements in the coinbase without violating consensus rules (Bitcoin Core policy). According to the Bitcoin Wiki’s merged mining overview, merge mining lets miners earn auxiliary‑chain rewards at little additional cost, which can influence the trade‑off between including coinbase data commitments and prioritizing fee‑paying transactions—an incentive dynamic traders should monitor when assessing near‑term BTC on‑chain fee pressure (Bitcoin Wiki: Merged Mining).

According to @BitMEXResearch, transaction accelerator services are an example of out-of-band fees on Bitcoin, where fees are arranged outside the public mempool process. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/; https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969067597372027389 According to @BitMEXResearch, if out-of-band fees become very popular, this is potentially bad for Bitcoin’s decentralisation and therefore its censorship resistance. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/; https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969067597372027389 According to @BitMEXResearch, the article examines private fee arrangements between users and miners and outlines the decentralization and censorship-resistance risks associated with these out-of-band mechanisms. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/ According to @BitMEXResearch, this research highlights a network-structure risk that traders focused on BTC fundamentals can monitor when evaluating fee-market dynamics and miner behavior. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/

According to BitMEX Research on X dated Sep 19, 2025, an email from OCEAN pool board member Bob Burnett from May 2025 is highlighted alleging OCEAN is actively campaigning to materially degrade the open, censorship-resistant public mempool and may seek to compete with it via a private closed system, focusing on Bitcoin network transaction flow and mempool policy (source: BitMEX Research, X, Sep 19, 2025). The post includes a screenshot and link referencing the email and does not present quantitative data or an official confirmation from OCEAN within the thread (source: BitMEX Research, X, Sep 19, 2025). The claim centers on potential replacement or competition with the public mempool by a mining pool, which directly pertains to BTC transaction propagation paths referenced in the post (source: BitMEX Research, X, Sep 19, 2025). The thread was retweeted by FarsideUK, indicating the claim has broader community visibility on the same date (source: BitMEX Research, X, Sep 19, 2025).

According to BitMEX Research, when Bitcoin nodes materially disagree on transaction relay rules, the less stringent and incentive-compatible relay policy tends to prevail across the network. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 18, 2025, x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1968746527414780015 For traders, the practical takeaway is that transaction propagation and inclusion likelihoods will align with policies that relay a broader set of transactions when such policies match miner incentives, shaping which transactions reach miners during policy disputes. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 18, 2025, x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1968746527414780015; Bitcoin Core release notes and policy documentation on transaction relay and mempool behavior, bitcoincore.org/en/releases/ and github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

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 @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 BitMEX Research, claims that Bitcoin saw zero spam attacks after filtering arbitrage data above 80B are incorrect, with the team cataloging repeated spam-like waves spanning 2011 to 2023 (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 9, 2025). Examples cited include the 2011 Single Satoshi Spam, Satoshi Dice in 2012, April 2013 85-output transactions, 2014 Sochi spam, multiple Coinwallet.eu waves and the Aug 2015 Giv3r spam, sustained high-volume usage from Omni/Tether and Counterparty, the 2016 "busy week" spam, March 2017 51-output wallet spam, Oct 2018 Bestmixer, 2019 Veriblock, 2020 momo, and 2023 Ordinals/BRC-20 and Babylon Labs Taproot-related activity (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 9, 2025; source: BitMEX Research blog on the 2015 spam attacks). BitMEX Research adds that outcomes are path dependent and identifies increased mining centralisation pressure and a lack of mining incentives as the largest risks to Bitcoin's network (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 9, 2025). For traders, BitMEX Research’s chronology highlights Ordinals/BRC-20 activity and miner incentive sufficiency as key variables when assessing BTC network risk and blockspace usage patterns (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 9, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, a new report analyzes how Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions affect node runners’ bandwidth, storage, and operating costs, linking these dynamics to BTC fee volatility and blockspace pricing. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/ordinals-impact-on-node-runners/ For traders, the report highlights three actionable metrics to monitor during inscription activity: mempool size, median sat/vB fee rates, and block fullness, as these directly impact execution costs and settlement latency for BTC transactions. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/ordinals-impact-on-node-runners/ The study’s focus is directly relevant to fee-derived miner revenues versus subsidies, a mix that can influence short-term hashprice and on-chain cost environment during periods of elevated inscriptions. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/ordinals-impact-on-node-runners/

According to @BitMEXResearch, large Ordinal-related image inscriptions are not a positive for Bitcoin and could have negative consequences by pricing out financial transactions, source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 8, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, these large images may offer only a small side benefit for node runners, source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 8, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, Ordinals-driven demand therefore poses a risk to financial transaction inclusion on Bitcoin, a factor relevant to on-chain trade execution and fee-sensitive strategies, source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 8, 2025.

According to BitMEX Research, its dataset indicates that higher amounts of arbitrary data from Bitcoin Ordinals are associated with faster blockchain verification, with verification speed increasing as the average Ordinal size rises (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 8, 2025). BitMEX Research adds that larger Ordinals explain 11% of the variance in verification time, providing a quantified relationship relevant to assessing BTC network performance during periods of heavy inscription activity (source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 8, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, the Bitcoin UTXO set expanded from 84 million to 169 million between December 2022 and September 2025 during the Ordinals period, an increase of roughly 85 million outputs, highlighting significant on-chain growth (source: @BitMEXResearch, Sep 8, 2025). According to @BitMEXResearch, BRC-20 tokens are identified as the key scaling problem driving this UTXO expansion in the Ordinals era (source: @BitMEXResearch, Sep 8, 2025). A larger UTXO set raises memory and storage requirements for full nodes, indicating increased resource load at the protocol level that traders should monitor for operational costs and throughput constraints (source: Bitcoin Developer Reference, UTXO set). Historically, surges in Ordinals and BRC-20 activity have coincided with higher BTC transaction fees and slower confirmations, which can affect exchange deposit and withdrawal timing and miner fee revenue sensitivity (source: mempool.space historical fee charts, May 2023).

According to BitMEX Research, image-related Ordinals are approximately the same on-chain size as BRC-20 Ordinals, at around 30GB (source: BitMEX Research, Sep 8, 2025). BitMEX Research reports that both categories contribute a similar cumulative data footprint on Bitcoin of roughly 30GB (source: BitMEX Research, Sep 8, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, BRC-20 tokens are the dominant form of Bitcoin Ordinals by transaction count, with 92.5 million BRC-20 transactions compared to 2.7 million Ordinal images; Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 8, 2025 https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1965190903762395536. According to @BitMEXResearch, these figures are presented in a new article titled Ordinals – Impact On Node Runners; Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 8, 2025 https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1965190903762395536.