According to Adam Back, a wallet-level fee routing sketch would send the minimum network fee on-chain while directing the remainder of the dynamic fee to a 1-of-n multisig controlled by mining pools that reject JPEG inscriptions, with the goal of depriving pools that process such transactions of fee revenue, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025. According to Adam Back, he notes that implementing this without introducing new centralization risks is difficult, explicitly flagging centralization trade-offs in the approach, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025. According to Adam Back, the stated intent directly targets miner revenue distribution and transaction selection incentives in the BTC fee market by shifting fees toward inscription-filtering pools and away from pools that include those transactions, source: Adam Back on X, Sep 5, 2025.

According to Adam Back, Bitcoin’s censorship resistance prevents censoring, seizure, or freezing of transactions and also means the network cannot block non-financial data such as JPEG inscriptions from consuming block space. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 2, 2025. He states that Bitcoin’s fixed block size and a dynamic fee market act as a sanity limit to preserve decentralization, keeping BTC unseizable and unfreezable. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 2, 2025. For traders, this design implies that when inscription activity rises, fee rates adjust upward through the fee market and confirmations can lengthen, raising on-chain transfer costs and timing risk for moving BTC collateral. Source: Adam Back on X, Sep 2, 2025.