According to @BitMEXResearch, inscriptions and OP_RETURN transactions still account for 40% of Bitcoin transaction count, 10% of fees paid, and 28% of block weight; source: BitMEX Research on X citing OrangeSurfBTC, Sep 30, 2025. For traders, this composition signals notable non-payment demand for blockspace, with the 28% weight share and 10% fee share providing a direct gauge for timing on-chain BTC settlements and fee estimation; source: BitMEX Research on X citing OrangeSurfBTC, Sep 30, 2025.

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 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.