According to @BitMEXResearch, the phrase spam doesn't exist is rhetorical shorthand emphasizing that block space should be allocated by fee markets and consensus-defined transaction validity, reinforcing Bitcoin's censorship resistance rather than denying the concept of spam. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Nov 25, 2025. @BitMEXResearch states that filtering is censorship is a warning that if filters work as proponents intend, the same mechanisms could be used to censor transactions, so filters should not be effective in that way. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Nov 25, 2025. For traders, this stance highlights that near-term transaction inclusion hinges on fee markets rather than content-based filtering, with implications for on-chain fee dynamics and miner revenue sensitivity to demand. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Nov 25, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, tightening Bitcoin relay policy with your full node is unlikely to influence other nodes because it is hard to stop data flowing across the internet, source: @BitMEXResearch, X, Nov 20, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, loosening relay policy can materially increase your node's influence on transaction propagation and the effect scales with peer count, which is relevant for desks seeking broader broadcast of BTC transactions, source: @BitMEXResearch, X, Nov 20, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, for enforcing consensus rules, whether your node matters depends on its economic weight rather than its mere presence, guiding traders to focus on the economic context of their own validation, source: @BitMEXResearch, X, Nov 20, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, the core takeaway is that running a node primarily safeguards your own view of the chain rather than steering the wider network, a practical point for BTC settlement assurance and counterparty risk checks, source: @BitMEXResearch, X, Nov 20, 2025.

According to @ItsDave_ADA, Cardano recorded a significant rise in on-chain transactions over the last hour on Nov 16, 2025. Source: @ItsDave_ADA on X Traders can verify the intraday spike by checking real-time transaction counts and TPS on CardanoScan and PoolTool before making any execution decisions. Source: CardanoScan; PoolTool Input Output Global documentation explains that increased demand elevates mempool load and can lengthen confirmation times on Cardano’s EUTXO network, which can affect DEX execution quality and slippage during bursts. Source: Input Output Global technical documentation To gauge whether the activity correlates with trading demand, monitor ADA spot volume and Cardano DEX volumes such as Minswap analytics in real time. Source: Minswap Analytics

According to the source, on-chain data show a Bitcoin transaction that paid more than $105,197 in miner fees to move roughly $10 in BTC on Tuesday, an amount reported as slightly less than 1 BTC at the time (source: mempool.space blockchain explorer data). The full fee accrues to the miner of the confirming block, lifting that block’s total reward above the subsidy and directly increasing miner revenue (source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide on transaction fees). For traders, tracking fee rates and the unconfirmed transaction count helps gauge real-time blockspace tightness and potential settlement cost risk during volatile periods (sources: mempool.space fee rate and mempool dashboards). Elevated fee revenue increases miner hashprice in the short term, which can influence the pricing of listed Bitcoin miner equities and mining economics (source: Luxor Hashrate Index methodology on hashprice). Outlier transactions alone do not establish a trend, so monitoring whether average and median fees remain elevated is key to assessing ongoing market impact (sources: mempool.space historical fee metrics).

According to the source, a BTC transaction reportedly included over $105,000 in miner fees to send roughly $10, highlighting the risk of manual fee settings during network congestion, source: user-provided tweet. Similar outlier incidents have occurred; Paxos confirmed it mistakenly paid a 19.821 BTC fee in September 2023 and mining pool F2Pool later returned the funds, source: Paxos official X statement; F2Pool official X statement. For trading decisions, monitor mempool congestion, sat/vB fee bands, and unconfirmed transaction counts to anticipate settlement latency and near-term BTC volatility, source: Bitcoin Core fee estimation documentation; mempool.space fee charts. Elevated L1 fees can redirect activity to centralized exchanges and Lightning, affecting deposit/withdrawal times and spreads; track exchange status pages and Lightning capacity to manage execution risk, source: major exchanges’ public status dashboards; Bitcoin Visuals Lightning Network capacity data.

According to BitMEX Research, setting up their own nodes and connecting to many peers was relatively easy, demonstrating that a tiny minority of node runners can undermine incentive-incompatible transaction relay filters (source: BitMEX Research). According to BitMEX Research, these relay filters are proving unsustainable, analogous to the economically unsustainable surplus block capacity observed from 2009 to 2015 (source: BitMEX Research). According to BitMEX Research, traders should note that practical attempts at relay-layer censorship can be bypassed, making relay policy an unreliable tool for shaping Bitcoin transaction propagation and a risk factor to monitor when evaluating on-chain activity (source: BitMEX Research).

According to @adam3us, he is asking how to use his Bitcoin wallet to vote against spam, highlighting user-level signaling concerns around unwanted transactions on the BTC network (source: @adam3us on X, Oct 8, 2025). For traders, this flags a need to closely monitor BTC fee rates and mempool congestion during spam-related debates, as shifts in transaction composition can affect on-chain execution costs and liquidity timing (source: @adam3us on X, Oct 8, 2025).

According to @Andre_Dragosch, market participants are questioning the need to upgrade to Bitcoin Core v30 or Bitcoin Knots, citing concerns about both spamming and censorship on the BTC network. Source: @Andre_Dragosch on X, Oct 5, 2025. This highlights an active debate over node policy and relay rules in different Bitcoin implementations, which define which transactions are relayed or accepted into mempools and thereby shape fee formation and confirmation latency. Source: Bitcoin Core documentation on mempool policy and transaction relay rules. For trading, divergences or shifts in these policies can change network congestion and fee volatility, influencing on-chain liquidity, exchange deposit and withdrawal costs, and the BTC spot-futures basis. Source: Bitcoin Core fee estimation documentation and Bitcoin on-chain data. Actionable focus: monitor mempool size, effective feerates, and confirmation times via Bitcoin Core RPC (getmempoolinfo, estimatesmartfee), and track miner fee share of block rewards to assess potential tailwinds or headwinds for BTC transaction costs. Source: Bitcoin Core documentation and Bitcoin blockchain data.

According to @adam3us (Twitter, Oct 5, 2025), fighting spam is an arms race and is harder on Bitcoin because of its anti-censorship design. Bitcoin relies on transaction fees and limited block space to deter spam, which creates a fee-bidding market under congestion that impacts confirmation times and on-chain costs (source: Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, 2008; Bitcoin.org Developer Guide – Transactions and Fees). Traders can manage execution risk by monitoring mempool size and sat/vB fee bands to plan BTC settlement timing and costs during congestion cycles (source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide – Mempool and Fees).

According to BitMEX Research, Bitcoin blockspace should be allocated by market pricing and miners should not avoid high-fee transactions, as stated in its post on X dated Sep 30, 2025, source: BitMEX Research (X, Sep 30, 2025). This stance reinforces fee-based prioritization in miner transaction selection, a core driver of BTC fee market dynamics relevant to transaction costs and confirmation ordering, source: BitMEX Research (X, Sep 30, 2025).

According to the source, traders are centering their BTC playbooks on three verified drivers: miner economics after the April 2024 halving reduced the block subsidy to 3.125 BTC at height 840000, persistent on-chain fee pressure from inscription activity, and the liquidity impact of US spot ETF primary flows. Source: Bitcoin.org; mempool.space; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The halving mechanically lowered baseline miner revenue, increasing sensitivity to fee cycles and BTC price for hashprice and potential treasury adjustments observable in industry hashprice indices. Source: Bitcoin.org; Luxor Hashprice Index. Inscription-heavy periods have corresponded with sustained mempool backlogs and elevated sat/vB fees, affecting confirmation times and exchange batching strategies that can influence short-term on-chain settlement costs. Source: mempool.space. SEC approval of multiple spot Bitcoin ETFs on January 10, 2024 enabled creations and redemptions that coincide with substantial custodian inflows reported by issuers and with observed declines in exchange-held BTC during strong net inflow periods. Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; iShares IBIT issuer reports; Glassnode exchange balance dashboards. For trading, key signals to monitor include miner reserve and hashpower trends, daily spot ETF net creations or redemptions, and on-chain fee regimes alongside futures basis and open interest for leverage buildup risk. Source: CryptoQuant miner reserve metrics; issuer daily flow reports; mempool.space fee charts; CME Group futures data.

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 @adam3us, some Bitcoin Knots proponents may prefer operating blocks-only nodes to reduce exposure, likening the setup to leech mode in peer-to-peer file sharing, source: Adam Back via X. In blocks-only mode, nodes do not request or relay unconfirmed transactions and synchronize primarily through blocks, which limits local mempool visibility used for fee estimation and confirmation targeting, source: Bitcoin Core -blocksonly documentation. For BTC traders, reduced participation in mempool relay can make widely tracked fee-rate and mempool-size indicators less representative during congestion, affecting predictability of on-chain settlement times, source: Bitcoin Core -blocksonly documentation. Short-term execution strategies that rely on unconfirmed transaction flow should incorporate multiple full-relay data feeds or direct miner interfaces to mitigate blind spots, source: Bitcoin Core -blocksonly documentation.

According to Patrick McCorry, the current Bitcoin OP_RETURN governance dispute has turned toxic despite not involving a consensus rule change, highlighting that the issue is about policy-level standardness rather than base consensus. Source: Patrick McCorry on X. In Bitcoin Core, OP_RETURN handling is governed by standardness policy and not consensus, allowing nodes and miners to independently choose relay and inclusion behavior, which can alter transaction propagation and block composition. Source: Bitcoin Core documentation. Relay and inclusion policies directly affect mempool backlog and fee rates that traders monitor when assessing BTC liquidity and intraday volatility, making mempool size, feerate bands, and miner inclusion patterns key signals around this debate. Source: Bitcoin Core documentation on mempool and fee estimation.

According to @adam3us, nudging miners with education, outreach to switch to pools that do not include image-style 'JPEG' transactions, and fee-backed economic lobbying could reduce their inclusion in BTC blocks, indicating a push for stricter pool-level transaction policies, source: Adam Back (X, Sep 5, 2025). A coordinated mining-pool policy directly changes block templates and which transactions compete for scarce block space, thereby influencing the Bitcoin fee market, source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide on Mining and Transaction Fees. Traders should monitor pool policy announcements, the share of blocks mined by pools that exclude such transactions, and median sat/vB fee levels as near-term catalysts for BTC on-chain costs and throughput, source: Bitcoin.org Mining overview; mining pool operator communications. A visible decline in these image-style transactions would be reflected in mempool composition and block contents, signaling potential easing of fee spikes that impact deposit and withdrawal costs for exchanges and users, source: Bitcoin.org Mempool and Fees documentation.

According to @adam3us, Bitcoin transaction relay filters "don’t work," and conflating the mempool with the peer-to-peer network misstates the issue, underscoring limits of node-level censorship (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 2, 2025). According to @adam3us, the dispute centers on relay versus mempool semantics, with the takeaway that the debate is about local policy rather than consensus changes, which is consistent with Bitcoin Core’s distinction between policy and consensus (source: Adam Back on X; Bitcoin Core policy documentation). According to Bitcoin Core documentation, relay and mempool behavior are governed by local policy and feerate thresholds, meaning nodes decide which transactions to forward and keep, which in turn shapes short-term fee floors and confirmation times when demand spikes (source: Bitcoin Core policy documentation; BIP-133 feefilter). According to BIP-133, nodes advertise minimum feerates for relay, influencing which transactions propagate promptly, so traders should track fee rates, mempool backlog, and miner revenue sensitivity during relay-policy debates highlighted by @adam3us (source: BIP-133; Adam Back on X).

According to @stonecoldpat0, there has been no Bitcoin spam for a while and he supports Bitcoin Core updating transaction relay rules, citing context from an @ercwl talk and stating it is not 2014 anymore, implying policy modernisation is warranted for the network stack. Source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, 2025-08-28. Relay rules determine which transactions nodes relay and accept into mempools, shaping propagation and standardness policies that directly influence throughput under load and the fee market during congestion. Source: Bitcoin Core policy and relay documentation; Bitcoin.org Developer Guide (Transactions, Mempool, and Fees). For BTC traders, any relay policy change can shift mempool composition and effective minimum fee rates for timely confirmations, so monitor mempool size and median fee-rate changes around implementation windows to manage slippage and settlement risk. Source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide on fees and confirmation dynamics; Bitcoin Core policy documentation. Tactical takeaway: if mempool backlog rises and fee-rate floors climb following relay-policy adjustments, tighten intraday risk limits on on-chain settlement, widen withdrawal-fee assumptions for arbitrage legs, and prioritize high-fee, child-pays-for-parent strategies to maintain confirmation speed. Source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide (fee estimation, CPFP mechanics); Bitcoin Core policy documentation.

According to @rovercrc, Bitcoin transaction fees measured by the 14-day SMA have fallen to their lowest level since 2011 (source: @rovercrc). He also reports that on-chain activity is quiet, indicating subdued demand for blockspace (source: @rovercrc). Lower fees reflect reduced competition for blockspace and lower fee revenue share for miners, increasing reliance on the fixed block subsidy under Bitcoin’s fee market design (source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide). BTC traders can monitor fee trends and mempool congestion alongside the 14-day SMA to gauge shifts in on-chain demand and potential liquidity conditions in the spot and derivatives markets (source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide; source: @rovercrc). The source frames this backdrop as reinforcing BTC’s store-of-value narrative, with holding behavior taking precedence over transactional throughput (source: @rovercrc).

According to BitMEX Research, traders and node operators have the option to refuse upgrading from Bitcoin Core 29.0, switch to another implementation, or continue using Bitcoin Core with the mempool feature disabled (source: BitMEX Research, Twitter, May 6, 2025). These choices may affect transaction processing speed, fee dynamics, and overall network participation, which could influence short-term Bitcoin price volatility and liquidity on major exchanges. Traders should closely monitor how large node operators respond, as it may impact mempool congestion and mining incentives, both critical for active trading strategies.

According to @BitMEXResearch, a suggestion has been made to @mempool to consider renaming Antpool, Poolin, Braiins Pool, and Binance Pool to 'AntPool & Friends' on their mining pool page. This proposal aims to simplify the representation of these major mining pools on the mempool's website, potentially making it easier for users to identify and understand the relationships between these entities. The request was highlighted in a tweet by @BitMEXResearch, referencing a detailed analysis available on b10c.me.