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 @adam3us, Bitcoin (BTC) needs an optimal mix of anti-spam vigilance, incentive-driven economics, and game-theory-focused coding, highlighting the network’s core design pillars for durability and security (source: Adam Back (@adam3us), Oct 2, 2025). Bitcoin’s proof-of-work deters transaction spam and secures consensus, while miner rewards and fees align incentives, directly linking security and transaction costs to demand (source: Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, 2008; Adam Back, Hashcash, 2002; Bitcoin Core documentation). For trading, this framework directs attention to BTC hash rate and fee rates as primary inputs for security and congestion assessment that can influence execution costs and on-chain activity during peak demand (source: Bitcoin Core documentation on mempool policy and fee estimation; Satoshi Nakamoto, 2008).

According to @BitMEXResearch, the post contrasts spam-deterrent relay filters with running blocksonly mode on Bitcoin nodes and asks whether blocksonly would deter all transactions, highlighting how node policy affects propagation and fee dynamics, source: BitMEX Research on X, Sep 28, 2025. In Bitcoin Core, blocksonly mode disables inbound transaction relay from peers while still receiving and validating blocks, and locally created transactions can still be broadcast via other nodes, so it does not stop transactions from being mined network-wide, source: Bitcoin Core documentation. Bitcoin’s standardness and relay filters are designed to reduce spam and DoS risk by not relaying non-standard or too-low-fee transactions, which is a mempool policy layer distinct from blocksonly mode, source: Bitcoin Core policy documentation. For traders, relay policy and filtering primarily affect the fee market and confirmation latency, which change on-chain settlement costs and arbitrage timing for BTC, impacting spreads and execution risk during congestion, source: Bitcoin Core documentation; Kaiko research. Historical episodes of elevated mempool congestion and rising feerates have coincided with more volatile BTC basis and funding as settlement frictions increase, informing risk management for derivatives and spot-perp strategies, source: Glassnode research 2023–2024; Kaiko market reports. Actionably, monitor mempool size, median feerate and average confirmations as leading indicators of short-term BTC liquidity and withdrawal or deposit latency rather than assuming blocksonly adoption suppresses transactions across the network, source: Bitcoin Core documentation; mempool.space data.

According to @BitMEXResearch, relying on miners to behave as good actors works only if mining is centralized, whereas in a decentralized and competitive industry miners rationally maximize next-block revenue. source: BitMEX Research. They state that during the Blocksize War, the view that miners would voluntarily keep blocks small was unrealistic, and that without a hard blocksize limit miners would produce massive blocks filled with any fee-paying transactions, so a limit is needed to prevent oversized blocks. source: BitMEX Research. For traders, the takeaway is that Bitcoin blockspace policy depends on protocol rules rather than voluntary miner restraint, so expectations should not assume miners will forgo revenue to be good actors. source: BitMEX Research.

According to @adam3us, he heard from multiple contacts that OCEAN reached out to Bitcoin mining pools with legal theories intended to push corporate counsel toward moderating content, and he added this looks worse in the context of leaked @lukedashjr instant messages referenced by an article from @theragetech. Source: Adam Back on X (Sep 25, 2025), https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1971330468961542213 Trading relevance: The allegation centers on potential pool-level content moderation in Bitcoin transaction selection, a governance risk that can influence policy signaling by mining pools and market sentiment around BTC’s censorship resistance; traders should monitor any public statements or policy updates from OCEAN and major pools for changes that could affect transaction selection and fee dynamics. Source: Adam Back on X (Sep 25, 2025), https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1971330468961542213

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 @adam3us, Bitcoin now has about 105 million inscription-related data items, with only roughly 3 million being JPEGs or other images and the vast majority comprised of Runes/BRC-style entries largely used for meme coins and copied from other chains (Source: @adam3us on X, Sep 6, 2025). For BTC traders, this breakdown identifies token-style inscriptions—not image NFTs—as the primary driver of recent inscription counts on Bitcoin, a factor to monitor when assessing blockspace usage, fee conditions, and miner revenue sensitivity to transaction mix (Source: @adam3us on X, Sep 6, 2025).

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, spam-related activity currently accounts for about 1.5% of the Bitcoin fee market, with a crude estimate that roughly 1% of excess fees comes from spam rather than standard transactions and that spam displaces other transaction fees, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025. According to @adam3us, if fees remain persistently higher, miners respond by buying more ASICs, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025. For traders, this dynamic can expand network hash rate and lead to higher future difficulty, directly affecting on-chain transaction costs and settlement timing, so monitor fee rates and the next difficulty adjustment window, source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide; source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025.

According to Adam Back (@adam3us), the source of current on-chain spam is the JPEG industry—sellers and buyers—supported by VC funding, with miners earning an estimated $250 million per year from the associated fees, which he describes as a very rough estimate (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025). According to Adam Back, the path to prevail is to make economic sense and laser-focus on outcomes by addressing where the spam originates rather than actions that work against core objectives (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025). According to Adam Back, miners are among the beneficiaries of these fees alongside JPEG market participants and VC funding, highlighting the incentive structure around the activity (source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025).

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.