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 @Excellion, the Bitcoin dust limit is just a relay filter and Bitcoin Core should remove it to reflect actual network usage, as stated in his post on X: https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/1978656208560226566. In Bitcoin Core policy, the dust limit marks very small outputs as non-standard for relay to mitigate spam, with typical thresholds (e.g., ~546 sats for P2PKH at a 1 sat/vB min relay fee) derived from policy rules and cost assumptions, affecting what transactions propagate across the network; source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dust and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/policy/standard_transactions.md. Any change to remove or alter this filter would require a reviewed code change through the Bitcoin Core contribution and PR process, which governs how consensus and policy modifications are evaluated and merged; source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md. For traders, relay policy directly influences which transactions reach miners and can impact fee pressure and confirmation times when blocks are full, affecting on-chain settlement costs and timing for BTC flows; source: https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/transactions.html and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/policy/standard_transactions.md.

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 @Andre_Dragosch, Bitcoin Core has undeprecated the datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options, restoring node-operator control over relaying data-carrying transactions via local policy, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X. Traders can monitor BTC fee rates, mempool size, and blockspace usage following this node-policy update to optimize execution timing and costs, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X.

According to BitMEX Research, the team contrasted Bitcoin Core with Bitcoin Knots and highlighted a proposed middle-ground client that will not start unless the user manually enters an OP_RETURN relay limit. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 26, 2025. BitMEX Research drew attention to OP_RETURN relay policy configuration as a differentiator between implementations, while providing no parameter values, timelines, or release details in the post. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 26, 2025. Traders tracking BTC network microstructure can note the explicit focus on OP_RETURN relay limits in client policy discussions flagged by BitMEX Research. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 26, 2025.

According to the source, there is an online dispute about whether MicroStrategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor commented on a controversial Bitcoin (BTC) codebase change that has split the community in recent months, but this is referenced only via a secondary media post that cannot be cited here. To provide a verified, trading-oriented analysis with proper sourcing, please share a direct primary source such as: Michael Saylor’s original X post (source: https://x.com/saylor), the specific BIP number and discussion on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list (source: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/), or the relevant Bitcoin Core GitHub issue/PR (source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin).

According to @FarsideUK, the long-running Bitcoin OP_RETURN policy limit debate is resolved, with nodes free to set their own local relay limit permanently. Source: Farside Investors on X, Sep 22, 2025. This aligns with Bitcoin Core policy design, where OP_RETURN data-carrier settings (-datacarrier and -datacarriersize) are node-level, non-consensus parameters, meaning each operator can set their own policy without affecting network consensus. Source: Bitcoin Core documentation. For traders, the key takeaway is no consensus change and thus minimal fork risk for BTC, while higher local limits can facilitate more data embedding during hype cycles, which has historically lifted on-chain fees and miner revenue amid inscription surges. Sources: Bitcoin Core policy documentation; mempool.space historical fee charts during the May 2023 inscription spike.

According to @Excellion, Bitcoin Core is trying to prevent private mempools, has removed OP_RETURN limits, and this is driving thousands of users toward Bitcoin Knots while compact block relay breaks, accelerating a shift to private mempools, source: X/@Excellion on Sep 22, 2025. For traders, increased use of private mempools reduces mempool overlap and can impair BIP152 compact block efficiency, potentially increasing relay bandwidth needs and confirmation latency during volatility, source: BIP152 Compact Block Relay (Bitcoin Core specification). BTC traders should monitor on-chain feerate distributions, compact block reconstruction success on nodes, and client share between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots as early indicators of fee pressure and settlement delays, source: Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots documentation and network policy references; X/@Excellion.

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 @Excellion, several Bitcoin node software developers tied to Bitcoin Knots and Bitcoin Core display contempt toward users by labeling other nodes as fake, saying users do not matter, and allegedly DDoSing nodes, which he argues undermines trust and adoption, source: @Excellion. He cites BTCPay and AQUA as examples where respectful stewardship and a user-first approach drove product success, framing developer behavior as central to network health, source: @Excellion. He urges developers to work professionally, avoid attacking users or competitors, and focus on serving the community as stewards to support Bitcoin’s governance, source: @Excellion.

According to @BitMEXResearch, recent rhetoric comparing Bitcoin Core to the Chinese Communist Party mischaracterizes the current governance discussion and is very different from the historical blocksize war, reducing the validity of direct analogies to a 2017-style conflict, source: BitMEX Research, X, Aug 17, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, the post also references multiple historical Bitcoin client implementations (Bitcoin Core, BitcoinXT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Knots), noting close relationships rather than clearly separate camps, which challenges claims of a binary developer split, source: BitMEX Research, X, Aug 17, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, the post cites no concrete activation path, miner signaling, or upgrade timetable, indicating no confirmed near-term catalyst for a contentious BTC hard fork based on the information presented, a point traders can use when evaluating fork-premium or volatility narratives, source: BitMEX Research, X, 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 @Excellion, traders should pay close attention when Bitcoin Core developers change default settings, as such modifications can have a direct impact on Bitcoin (BTC) network behavior and, consequently, market volatility and trading strategies. Changes in core defaults may affect transaction processing, node consensus, and overall trading liquidity, making it critical for market participants to stay informed about protocol-level updates to anticipate potential price movements and adjust their trading decisions accordingly (source: @Excellion).

According to @EricBalchunas, public firm SharpLink Gaming (SBET) has acquired 176,271 ether (ETH) for approximately $463 million, making it the largest publicly traded holder of ETH. This move comes despite its stock price falling sharply after a regulatory filing, though shares remain up roughly 500% since the company pivoted to a crypto treasury strategy. In other major developments, Polygon (MATIC) co-founder Sandeep Nailwal has become CEO of the Polygon Foundation, initiating a strategic overhaul focused on the AggLayer cross-chain liquidity protocol and retiring the zkEVM network. Additionally, the developers of Bitcoin Core confirmed the upcoming version 30 release will significantly increase the OP_RETURN data limit from 80 bytes to nearly 4MB, a change that could impact network usage. The Ethereum Foundation also introduced a new treasury policy, capping annual operational expenses at 15% to ensure long-term sustainability.

According to the source, Polygon (MATIC) is undergoing a major strategic overhaul, with co-founder Sandeep Nailwal taking over as CEO of the Polygon Foundation. The team is retiring its zkEVM network to focus on AggLayer, a new cross-chain liquidity protocol aimed at enhancing interoperability. In other key developments, the Ethereum Foundation (ETH) has implemented a new treasury policy, capping annual operational expenses at 15% to ensure long-term sustainability, signaling a focus on critical deliverables for 2025-2026. For Bitcoin (BTC), the upcoming Core version 30 release in October will significantly increase the OP_RETURN data limit, a move that could impact network usage and transaction fees by allowing more data storage on-chain. Additionally, the Plume network has launched its Genesis mainnet to bring Real-World Assets (RWA) to DeFi, and Ant Group plans to apply for stablecoin licenses in Hong Kong and Singapore, indicating major institutional interest in the space.

According to @QCompounding, the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA) has surpassed its proof-of-concept stage, with over $20 billion in tokenized assets from major institutions like BlackRock and VanEck. Key growth drivers for the next three years include maturing Layer 1 and Layer 2 infrastructure, evolving smart contracts potentially enhanced by AI, and increasing regulatory clarity in the U.S., EU, and APAC. In parallel, the market is seeing significant strategic shifts. According to the source, Polygon co-founder Sandeep Nailwal has taken over as CEO of the Polygon Foundation, reorienting the project's focus towards its new AggLayer cross-chain liquidity protocol and retiring the zkEVM network to reclaim its leadership in Web3. Additionally, the Ethereum Foundation has updated its treasury policy to cap operational expenses at 15% annually, aiming to focus on critical deliverables through 2026. The source also reports that the upcoming Bitcoin Core version 30 will increase the OP_RETURN data limit, a move that could impact how the network is used for non-financial data.

According to Margaux Nijkerk, Sandeep Nailwal has assumed CEO duties at Polygon Foundation, retiring the zkEVM rollup network to prioritize AggLayer for cross-chain liquidity, which may boost MATIC adoption and trading volumes. Nijkerk also reported the Ethereum Foundation's updated treasury policy with a 15% operational expense cap, enhancing ETH's long-term sustainability and market confidence. Sam Reynolds stated that Bitcoin Core 30 will increase the OP_RETURN data limit to nearly 4MB, potentially affecting BTC transaction utility and fee dynamics. Nijkerk noted Plume's Genesis mainnet launch for real-world asset tokenization in DeFi, signaling growth in RWA markets.

According to Samson Mow, users are showing decreased confidence in using Bitcoin Core, as reported on Twitter on May 14, 2025 (source: @Excellion). This decline in user trust could lead to increased volatility in Bitcoin prices and impact liquidity across major crypto exchanges. Traders should closely monitor network activity and sentiment shifts, as lower confidence in core infrastructure may prompt short-term selloffs or increased migration to alternative Bitcoin clients, potentially influencing BTC spot and derivatives trading volumes.