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 @BitMEXResearch, transaction accelerator services are an example of out-of-band fees on Bitcoin, where fees are arranged outside the public mempool process. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/; https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969067597372027389 According to @BitMEXResearch, if out-of-band fees become very popular, this is potentially bad for Bitcoin’s decentralisation and therefore its censorship resistance. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/; https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1969067597372027389 According to @BitMEXResearch, the article examines private fee arrangements between users and miners and outlines the decentralization and censorship-resistance risks associated with these out-of-band mechanisms. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/ According to @BitMEXResearch, this research highlights a network-structure risk that traders focused on BTC fundamentals can monitor when evaluating fee-market dynamics and miner behavior. Source: https://blog.bitmex.com/miner-fee-gathering-capability-part-2-out-of-band-fees/

According to @adam3us, an index compiling 200 Q&A explaining Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN was shared on Stacker News, with credit to @WalkerAmerica, and posted on Sep 13, 2025. source: Adam Back on X (Sep 13, 2025) OP_RETURN embeds small amounts of data in BTC transactions via provably unspendable outputs, and its data-carrier limits and standardness rules affect transaction size and fees. source: Bitcoin Core policy documentation; Bitcoin Wiki: OP_RETURN For traders, monitoring OP_RETURN usage can help interpret on-chain throughput and fee dynamics during periods of elevated data-carrier activity, aiding assessment of BTC transaction costs and miner-fee trends. source: Bitcoin Core fee estimation documentation; Bitcoin Wiki: OP_RETURN This curated Q&A provides a consolidated technical reference for understanding OP_RETURN mechanics relevant to transaction sizing, fee calculation, and indexing on Bitcoin. source: Adam Back on X (Sep 13, 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 @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 @ai_9684xtpa, the Babylon staking event saw rapid participation, with the first phase's 1000 BTC cap filled in less than six blocks. There were 20,610 staking transactions from 12,720 addresses. Following the staking kickoff, miner fees surged to $200, averaging $130, reminiscent of the inscription era, which could be costly for individual stakers. Among BTC Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs), SolvProtocol was highlighted.