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 @adam3us, stopping spam has never worked on the internet and Bitcoin’s censorship-resistant, decentralized design makes protocol-level spam filtering ineffective; filter-as-protest is fine, but filters won’t work, source: Adam Back, X post dated Oct 5, 2025. According to @adam3us, traders should not expect effective on-chain spam blacklists to reduce congestion, and instead assume BTC fee market and mempool dynamics will continue to be market-driven, source: Adam Back, X post dated Oct 5, 2025.