According to @BitMEXResearch, Fork Monitor is now running Bitcoin Core v0.8.6, released in 2013, and the client is currently at the BTC chain tip, confirming active synchronization on mainnet; source: BitMEX Research on X and forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc and bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.8.6/. This live reading demonstrates backward-compatible consensus behavior, as a 2013-era node is tracking the contemporary chain without a divergent tip observed by this monitor; source: forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc. The v0.8.6 release predates soft-fork upgrades such as SegWit and Taproot, which are designed so older nodes remain compatible even if they do not enforce the new rules; source: github.com/bitcoin/bips/bip-0141, github.com/bitcoin/bips/bip-0341, developer.bitcoin.org/devguide. For traders, the monitor’s tip alignment indicates no fork-driven disruption signal in BTC settlement from this data point today, highlighting operational stability relevant to short-term risk assessment; source: forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc.

According to BitMEX Research, the proposal under discussion can be abused via a five-step process that encrypts objectionable content into a block, completes a large on-chain payment to receive service, waits any duration, then publishes the decryption key and, if a reorg occurs, rebroadcasts the large payment with a higher fee to self, enabling a double spend, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 27, 2025. BitMEX Research states the design encourages both double-spend attacks and the propagation of objectionable content while giving attackers control over transaction timing and sequencing, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 27, 2025. The scenario explicitly targets large BTC payments post-service delivery, underscoring direct settlement risk if such a mechanism were adopted, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 27, 2025.

According to BitMEX Research, a tiny minority of nodes, if operated correctly, can defeat incentive-incompatible transaction filters on Bitcoin, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 27, 2025. The post highlights the power of individual node runners and frames this as a positive for Bitcoin’s censorship resistance, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 27, 2025. The post offers no quantitative metrics or price guidance but positions node-level resilience as the core message, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 27, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, the 2009 Satoshi Times is on display at the Lugano Plan B forum and the account publicly questioned why Lugano Plan B supports arbitrary data on the Bitcoin blockchain while tagging Paolo Ardoino; source: BitMEX Research post on X dated Oct 24, 2025. For traders, elevated support for inscriptions or other non-transactional payloads has historically tightened Bitcoin blockspace and driven fee spikes that can amplify short-term BTC volatility; source: mempool.space historical fee and mempool charts. Miner economics have tended to improve in such periods as the fee share of miner revenue rises, with a notable surge during April 2024 inscription activity; source: Blockchain.com Charts for miners’ revenue from fees and Glassnode on-chain data updates in April 2024. Monitor BTC fee rates, mempool size, and hashprice as leading indicators in the context of this debate; source: mempool.space dashboard and Luxor Hashprice Index.

According to @BitMEXResearch, the authors of node software implementations decide the default policy, and a small minority of node operators can loosen the effective relay policy on the network, shaping how transactions propagate across the network (Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Oct 20, 2025). According to @BitMEXResearch, this underscores the operational influence of node runners over effective network policy enforcement and transaction relay behavior (Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Oct 20, 2025).

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 @BitMEXResearch, Fork Monitor is now running Libre Relay 30.0-3 and Bitcoin Knots 29.1 (source: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1980023729402065113). The live BTC nodes page lists these client versions as part of Fork Monitor’s monitored infrastructure, allowing participants to verify active implementations (source: https://forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc). For traders tracking BTC network conditions, the nodes page provides concrete, up-to-date client version data relevant for assessing implementation coverage (source: https://forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc).

According to @BitMEXResearch, the recent Bitcoin Core update raised the OP_RETURN relay policy filter limit but did not change the actual OP_RETURN size limit or the Bitcoin blocksize limit, so this is not a blocksize increase (source: @BitMEXResearch). According to @BitMEXResearch, maintaining a strict blocksize cap is presented as the robust long-term defense against spam-like data (e.g., music collections or encrypted documents), whereas relay filters are neither effective nor decentralization-friendly because a small minority of nodes can bypass them and effective filtering creates centralization pressure (source: @BitMEXResearch). According to @BitMEXResearch, the small-block position remains intact with a reasonable blocksize limit designed to protect the network from spam, confirming no structural capacity expansion for BTC introduced by this change, a status important for traders tracking on-chain conditions and decentralization risks (source: @BitMEXResearch).

According to BitMEX Research, many nodes opting for Bitcoin Knots are primarily signaling dissatisfaction with Bitcoin Core, echoing the blocksize war when running Bitcoin Unlimited was ineffective at achieving change (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 18, 2025). According to BitMEX Research, Knots is effectively Core, so attempts to tighten Bitcoin relay policy by running Knots will not succeed even if a majority of nodes adopt it (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 18, 2025). According to BitMEX Research, this means traders should not expect Knots adoption to trigger network-wide relay or mempool policy shifts when assessing BTC fee dynamics and transaction propagation risks (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 18, 2025).

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 @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 @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, Gregory Maxwell issued strong comments on the ongoing Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Knots spam debate on Oct 15, 2025, confirming that the dispute remains active. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 15, 2025, https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978545931600511157. No further technical details or policy changes were provided in the post, limiting immediate actionable signals beyond noting the active developer-level contention. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 15, 2025, https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978545931600511157.

According to @BitMEXResearch, removing the OP_RETURN filter is strictly the better choice for your node. Source: @BitMEXResearch. If large OP_RETURNs are used, removal is necessary so Compact Blocks, pre-validation caching, and fee estimation work effectively on the node. Source: @BitMEXResearch. If large OP_RETURN usage remains low, nodes gain only a tiny benefit due to low usage rates, but removal is still preferable. Source: @BitMEXResearch. For BTC market participants, the source highlights fee estimation effectiveness and Compact Blocks performance, both relevant to on-chain fee strategies and confirmation risk management. Source: @BitMEXResearch.

According to @BitMEXResearch, Fork Monitor is now running Bitcoin Core v30, with additional nodes on Bitcoin Knots 0.29.1 and Libre Relay 29.1 for BTC network monitoring, which is relevant for traders tracking consensus and relay behavior for execution risk management, source: @BitMEXResearch on X Oct 12, 2025. The Fork Monitor nodes page lists active BTC nodes by implementation and version, providing real-time visibility into node versions and chain tip status that traders can reference during volatility events, source: forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc. Traders can compare cross-implementation behavior on a single dashboard to identify divergences in block heights or policy that may affect transaction propagation and confirmation assumptions, source: forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc.

According to BitMEX Research, some pro-Knots voices are amplifying CSAM risk and, paradoxically, this fear narrative could increase the chance of CSAM appearing on-chain more than raising the default relay policy limit would, highlighting a narrative-over-policy risk dynamic for BTC. Source: BitMEX Research, Oct 10, 2025. According to BitMEX Research, the situation mirrors the blocksize war, where messaging harmed Bitcoin’s consumer payments narrative more than the blocksize rule itself, implying narrative-driven headwinds can outweigh technical settings in shaping near-term Bitcoin market sentiment. Source: BitMEX Research, Oct 10, 2025. According to BitMEX Research, BTC traders should monitor three signals: the intensity of CSAM-related discourse, communications on Bitcoin Knots relay policy defaults, and references to blocksize war precedents as potential sentiment catalysts. Source: BitMEX Research, Oct 10, 2025.

According to BitMEX Research, OP_Return2 is a proposed Bitcoin (BTC) transaction output that commits a hash to up to 8MB of arbitrary data while nodes are not required to have that data to validate blocks, so miners and full nodes do not need to validate, relay, or store the extra data (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 9, 2025). OP_Return2 would be implemented via a softfork that changes the block weight formula to 8 times base data plus 2 times witness data plus claimed OP_Return2 data store being less than 8 million units (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 9, 2025). Special full data archive nodes could optionally relay and store the extra arbitrary data if available, while consensus rules would only require specifying the amount of extra data, and a fee to miners would be paid based on the specified data amount (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 9, 2025). Potential disadvantages highlighted include unclear willingness to pay for extra data when miners and nodes are not storing it, limited added value compared with OpenTimestamps with higher per-byte cost, and questions over whether a softfork is necessary given existing hash-in-chain plus external storage approaches (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 9, 2025). BitMEX Research also cautions that extra spam data could outbid legitimate payment transactions due to a steeper fee discount per byte, with an 8MB per-block size limit enabling 8MB of spam images to compete at the same cost as a 4MB Taproot witness inscription (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 9, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, a tiny minority in Bitcoin can relax an incentive-incompatible network relay limit regardless of majority preferences, while a significant minority can still enforce existing consensus rules, source: @BitMEXResearch. For traders, this asymmetry signals potential shifts in mempool relay behavior and fee dynamics that can impact BTC confirmation times and short-term liquidity conditions, source: @BitMEXResearch. Actionable focus includes monitoring relay-policy discussions, client policy updates, and on-chain fee spikes as early indicators of policy divergence that may widen BTC perpetual spreads and alter options skew, source: @BitMEXResearch.

According to @BitMEXResearch, Bitcoin relay filters aimed at BRC-20 traffic are unlikely to work because if roughly 10% of nodes ignore them, the looser relay policy wins across the network, which is how Bitcoin works, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 8, 2025. @BitMEXResearch adds that even with 99% adoption, spammers can adapt, making anti-spam efforts a whack-a-mole battle that asymmetrically favors spammers, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 8, 2025. @BitMEXResearch warns of four concrete side effects from fighting spam with stricter relay rules: encouraging direct peering with miners that increases centralization pressure, breaking Compact Blocks, breaking pre-block validation caching, and breaking fee estimation, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 8, 2025. For trading workflows, the listed breaking fee estimation directly degrades reliability of fee-based execution planning and confirmation-time models for BTC transactions, source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 8, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, Bitcoin has repeatedly faced spam-like transaction waves across its history, including Single Satoshi Spam (2011, 2014), Satoshi Dice (2012), an 85-output attack (Apr 2013), Sochi spam (2014), Coinwallet.EU waves (2015), Giv3r (Aug 2015), Omni/Tether and Counterparty high-volume eras, a 2016 busy week, 51-output wallet spam (Mar 2017), Bestmixer (Oct 2018), Veriblock (2019), momo (2020), and 2023 Ordinals and BRC-20 plus Babylon Labs Taproot spam, with 2025 Runes, Stamps, BRC2.0 and 2026 RGB also noted. Source: @BitMEXResearch, Twitter, Oct 8, 2025. For traders, the post’s repeated references to huge volume and spam signal ongoing fee market and mempool congestion risk during such surges, warranting proactive timing of BTC deposits, withdrawals, and on-chain arbitrage around potential fee spikes and confirmation delays. Source: @BitMEXResearch, Twitter, Oct 8, 2025.