[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]

# ![@BitMEXResearch Avatar](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:26/cr:twitter::906870773066772480.png) @BitMEXResearch BitMEX Research

BitMEX Research posts on X about bitcoin, spam, onchain, investment the most. They currently have XXXXXXX followers and XXX posts still getting attention that total XXXXXX engagements in the last XX hours.

### Engagements: XXXXXX [#](/creator/twitter::906870773066772480/interactions)
![Engagements Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::906870773066772480/c:line/m:interactions.svg)

- X Week XXXXXXX +54%
- X Month XXXXXXXXX +354%
- X Months XXXXXXXXX +75%
- X Year XXXXXXXXX -XX%

### Mentions: XX [#](/creator/twitter::906870773066772480/posts_active)
![Mentions Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::906870773066772480/c:line/m:posts_active.svg)

- X Week XXX -XX%
- X Month XXX +56%
- X Months XXX +241%
- X Year XXXXX +6.30%

### Followers: XXXXXXX [#](/creator/twitter::906870773066772480/followers)
![Followers Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::906870773066772480/c:line/m:followers.svg)

- X Week XXXXXXX +0.08%
- X Month XXXXXXX +0.13%
- X Months XXXXXXX +0.01%
- X Year XXXXXXX +0.23%

### CreatorRank: XXXXXXX [#](/creator/twitter::906870773066772480/influencer_rank)
![CreatorRank Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/cr:twitter::906870773066772480/c:line/m:influencer_rank.svg)

### Social Influence [#](/creator/twitter::906870773066772480/influence)
---

**Social category influence**
[exchanges](/list/exchanges)  #103 [cryptocurrencies](/list/cryptocurrencies)  #664 [finance](/list/finance)  #4886 [countries](/list/countries)  XXXX%

**Social topic influence**
[bitcoin](/topic/bitcoin) #316, [spam](/topic/spam) #163, [onchain](/topic/onchain) #510, [investment](/topic/investment) 0.84%, [transactions](/topic/transactions) 0.84%, [filters](/topic/filters) 0.84%, [compact](/topic/compact) 0.84%, [money](/topic/money) 0.84%, [blockchain](/topic/blockchain) #685, [united states](/topic/united-states) XXXX%

**Top accounts mentioned or mentioned by**
[@adam3us](/creator/undefined) [@bitcoinbombadil](/creator/undefined) [@mrhodl](/creator/undefined) [@excellion](/creator/undefined) [@cguida6](/creator/undefined) [@lukedashjr](/creator/undefined) [@kyletorpey](/creator/undefined) [@satflation](/creator/undefined) [@jabulanijakes](/creator/undefined) [@c477bfef6df4311](/creator/undefined) [@buymatador](/creator/undefined) [@calibrated_lies](/creator/undefined) [@nickszabo4](/creator/undefined) [@giacomozucco](/creator/undefined) [@arthur_van_pelt](/creator/undefined) [@arthurvanpelt](/creator/undefined) [@marsmensch](/creator/undefined) [@peterktodd](/creator/undefined) [@nicolasdorier](/creator/undefined) [@4moonsettler](/creator/undefined)

**Top assets mentioned**
[Bitcoin (BTC)](/topic/bitcoin)
### Top Social Posts [#](/creator/twitter::906870773066772480/posts)
---
Top posts by engagements in the last XX hours

"@VitalikButerin @koeppelmann Right But the hardware is a sunk cost so doesnt factor into current mining decisions"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1553036077241344001) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2022-07-29T15:13Z 119.6K followers, XX engagements


"FOUR THOUSAND AND THIRTY POLITICALLY MANAGED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOLLARS PER XXXXXXXXXX GRAMS OF AN ELEMENT WITH XX PROTONS IN EACH ATOM"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1975890039071780915) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-08T11:44Z 119.6K followers, 10.3K engagements


"@alpacasw @MrHodl @giacomozucco Is RGB an investment Isn't it an open source protocol without a token"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1975890714467975442) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-08T11:47Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"Similiar case of main character syndrome Source:"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1976257119591834070) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-09T12:03Z 119.6K followers, 27.1K engagements


"@BitcoinPierre @ManliusDaVius @Beautyon_ OP_RETURN Is used for the witness commitment Banning OP_Return would freeze around XX% of all Bitcoin"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1977079526422462818) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-11T18:31Z 119.6K followers, 1562 engagements


"@MrHodl The "anti-spam" camp will shortly reluctantly accept that filters indeed do not work at stopping fee paying transactions that people want to make They will continue to hate on Core anyway and they will then begin to say that something else needs to be done to stop spam"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1977338891809264015) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-12T11:41Z 119.6K followers, 1110 engagements


"@LukeDashjr We discussed this before with you We do not manually enter this not sure how it generates that"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1977376302869934231) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-12T14:10Z 119.6K followers, 1268 engagements


"@LaurentMT @hugomofn @darosior @giacomozucco I mean tehy want them for themselves but people accsept miners want to make profits"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978059713519477181) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-14T11:26Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"It's very simple: X. If large OP_Returns are used removing the filter was necessary to ensure Compact Blocks pre validation caching and fee estimation can work effectively on your node X. If large OP_Return usage is unchanged then nodes only have a very tiny benefit due to tiny percentage use rates Either way removing the filter is strictly the better choice for your node"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978366054679109899) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T07:43Z 119.6K followers, 3531 engagements


"@_DavidSFreeman @kyletorpey @StirlingForge Seems the "Knots" group are already moving on and they seem to implicitly agree that the filters indeed do not work sufficently well. Now it seems they want a softfork"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978521509296591047) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T18:01Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"@giacomozucco Not sure what is inconsistent about this"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978560800366227576) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T20:37Z 119.6K followers, 4390 engagements


"@GrassFedBitcoin"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978569572916601224) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T21:12Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"@CaminaDrummer4 @giacomozucco or has become a communist Which part is communist The "Bitcoin is secured by self interest" part 🤣"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978572323352440914) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T21:22Z 119.6K followers, 1279 engagements


"Sun: "Hi I'd like to buy a banana today." Store clerk: "You have come to the right place this is an art gallary which one would you like" Sun: "That one please" Store clerk: "That would be $6.2m. Where should we courier the item" Sun: "Oh don't worry I will just eat it now" Store clerk: "Well I do not agree with that but we are a business and you did pay quite a lot of money for the banana so I guess you can do as you wish with it. Its your property now" Filteroo: "Nooo That is disrespctful to the artist and the art world. Do not eat that banana This shop is a pure art system stop spamming.""  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978747174616735997) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-16T08:57Z 119.6K followers, 2452 engagements


"@kyletorpey I will never forget the time in 2016 when Roger Ver physically dragged me to read a physical copy of the whitepaper"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978891478211403800) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-16T18:31Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"@CupOJoseph @post_polar_ Not really XXX extra BTC XXX BTC that should have existed is not lost"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978901805858795573) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-16T19:12Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"Not really true that XXX extra Bitcoin was minted Actually XXX less Bitcoin was minted But thanks for posting our article"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978906070832513130) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-16T19:29Z 119.6K followers, 15.5K engagements


"@CupOJoseph @post_polar_ Other way round"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978910628472299642) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-16T19:47Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"Thats like saying burglars can pick locks anyway so why have doors The filters need over c95% adoption otherwise they are bypassed by just doing nothing. That is different to locks where bypass takes more effort than an unlocked door And if people do need to take steps to bypass them that has other damaging effects on the network: X. Increasing miner centralisation pressure X. Breaks Compact blocks X. Breaks pre-validation signature caching X. Ruins the ability to estimate feerates from your mempool The consequence of this is that each individual user benefits by turing off the filter despite"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979263356482580620) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-17T19:08Z 119.6K followers, XX engagements


"@satflation @stephanlivera Same vibes"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979620429745807612) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-18T18:47Z 119.6K followers, XX engagements


"Yes these spam systems have indeed occurred all over Bitcoin history * Sept 2011 Single Satoshi Spam * Satoshi Dice in 2012 * April 2013: txns with XX outputs attack * 2014 Sochi spam * Sept 2014 Single Satoshi Spam again * Three waves of spam attacks in 2015 * The Aug 2015 Giv3r spam * Omni/Tether - Huge volume of txns lasted for years * Counterparty - Huge volumes of transactions lasted for years * Nov 2016 "Busy week spam" * March 2017 txns with XX outputs each of XXXXXX BTC wallet spam * Oct 2018 Bestmixer spam * 2019 Veriblock spam (Huge volume) * 2020 momo spam * 2023: Oridnals and"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1975941595741454449) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-08T15:09Z 119.6K followers, 116.4K engagements


"@satflation @LukeDashjr @Excellion @NickSzabo4 @zamir591582 @adam3us @jabulanijakes The images are not endorsed by the reference client in v30 Not that "endorsement" makes any difference"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979945351403467096) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T16:18Z 119.6K followers, XX engagements


"According to Forbes HBO will say that @peterktodd is Satoshi. The Forbes article states that "a 2010 BitcoinTalk post replying to Satoshi Nakamoto that Cullen Hoback believes was accidentally posted using Todd's profile" This is clearly ridiculous It is just an example of @peterktodd replying to Satoshi with a snarky pedantic and accurate comment. Yes an output value will need to be reduced to generate a txn fee. This is the kind of comment Peter could make today. There is zero reason to believe this was Satoshi"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1843788557925921052) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2024-10-08T23:00Z 119.6K followers, 425.5K engagements


"Bitcoin NFT Market Update - XX Aug 2025 * Of the XX top ranked NFTs by MCap based on March 2025 prices the median floor price has declined by XXXX% in Bitcoin terms * Since each individual NFT's peak price in Bitcoin terms the median price decline is XXXX% * It turns out investing in Bitcoin NFTs such as images of cats and monkeys which many regard as onchain spam might not have been the best long term investment * It looks like the spam may be on the way to being defeated by pure economics rather than technical changes to Bitcoin Core's software or "signals" from the Core development team *"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1960757577081610254) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-08-27T17:33Z 119.6K followers, 31.4K engagements


"The first debate about arbitrary data in the blockchain happened in December 2010 and Satoshi was involved On 8th December 2010 Satoshi released Bitcoin version 0.3.18 which included a standardness check to only include known transaction types 🧵"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1972718255887335548) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-09-29T17:40Z 119.6K followers, 307.2K engagements


"OP_Return2 - Overview With intense debates over the default OP_Return relay limit continuing some have suggested OP_Return2 as a potential solution. We have summarised our understanding of OP_Return2 below. OP_Return2 is a new proposed transaction output that contains a hash commitment to up to 8MB of arbitrary data but the arbitrary data itself is not required by nodes to check if a block is valid. Therefore full nodes and miners do not need to validate propagate or store the extra data. Miners would just ignore the arbitrary data and therefore it would not contribute to mining"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1976423804478869853) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-09T23:05Z 119.6K followers, 51.3K engagements


"Another interesting angle is that many in the pro-Knots camp are spreading a lot of fear and noise about CSAM risk. Ironically this fear spreading and narrative will increase the risks of CSAM appearing on onchain to a much greater extent than the risks from increasing the default relay policy limit In a similiar way during the blocksize war the large blockers made a big part of their narrative that with small blocks Bitcoin is not a good solution for consumer payments. This narative did a lot more damage to Bitcoin consumer payments than the actual blocksize limit rule on the network did"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1976611497309618389) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-10T11:31Z 119.6K followers, 16.8K engagements


"Fighting talk from Gregory Maxwell on the Core v Knots spam debate"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978545931600511157) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T19:38Z 119.6K followers, 592.1K engagements


".@amuse FTX was an exchange that offered leverage. It was supposed to match assets exactly with its customer liabilities. FTX was NOT supposed to have a general pool of high risk assets that hopefully exceeded the value of customer liabilities"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978561885617193356) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T20:41Z 119.6K followers, 24.1K engagements


"@Zatoichi42 Freedom is not policy uniformity. I don't think anyone is asking for policy uniformity. This is a misconception"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1978585787974201719) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-15T22:16Z 119.6K followers, 3283 engagements


"You should read our 2018 article on "Competing with Bitcoin Core" Running Knots is not an effective way to say "fuck off Coretards" since both Knots and Core were largely written by the same people This is very similar to the desire of the large blockers to "fire Core" in 2016 to 2017 yet they also ran clients written by the same team like BitcoinXT Bitcoin Classic etc etc"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979271485869981709) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-17T19:41Z 119.6K followers, 147.7K engagements


"when the goal is just to send some people to fuck off Pretty ironic and perverse goal if at the same time one wants to run code they wrote. Could also put a tag "Fuck Coretards" in the Bitcoin Core version header. That is what it feels like to me somewhat comical. Remember Bitcoin Core does little else other than release this software"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979479703493746941) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-18T09:28Z 119.6K followers, 8080 engagements


"Increasing Blocksize increases centralization again diminishing its role as a more perfect form of money. (Read Blocksize Wars) Yes one should read "The Blocksize War". The OP_RETURN size limit has been 1MB for well over a decade. A recent version of Bitcoin Core has increased the OP_RETURN relay policy filter limit not the actual size limit. This recent change is not a blocksize limit increase. In Chapter X of "The Blocksize War" it explains one of the key reasons why we need a blocksize limit because otherwise the chain will be full of loads of spam or as the book puts it "music collection"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979843413395579298) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T09:33Z 119.6K followers, 55.3K engagements


"@Arthur_van_Pelt @adam3us There are millions of images in the Blockchain some of them 4MB in size Increasing the OP_Return relay limit does not change the CSAM risks"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979851962788278403) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T10:07Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"Negotiating with Spam Terrorists is the true mal-incentive & moral hazard Using a weak tool like filters to fight "spam terrorists" is not a good strategic move It's like trying to fight Al-Qaeda with toothpicks & as the toothpicks continually break you accuse all the critics of your strategy of supporting Al-Qaeda Filters are a poor choice of weapon"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979865724211310768) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T11:02Z 119.6K followers, 4246 engagements


"@edprospero23 Large OP_Return usage should indeed be rare since it's very expensive and there are cheaper ways of putting arbitrary data onchain And in the last few months there have been millions of Runes"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979872827286434119) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T11:30Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"@NicolasDorier @kretchino @NickSzabo4 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes but because it is not continuous then it is OK What about "Your honour the data was illegal but it was structured such that it wouldn't relay by default by what many consider as the reference Bitcoin client" Is that a valid legal defence"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979913403914154129) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T14:11Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"@mkuegi @lightcoin I think that limits the size of a script when spent but of course OP_RETURN outputs cannot be spent anyway"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979927054767280399) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T15:06Z 119.6K followers, XX engagements


"@LukeDashjr @Excellion @NickSzabo4 @zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes There are millions of images onchain already It didn't just become a risk this month And you knew Core was planning on relaxing the OP_Return relay limit for over a month"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979939083339108477) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T15:53Z 119.6K followers, 3017 engagements


"@LukeDashjr @TTrevethan @Excellion @NickSzabo4 @zamir591582 @adam3us @satflation @jabulanijakes Core XX trying to improve features like Compact Blocks does not change the definition of spam"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1979965903019053115) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T17:40Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements


"Fork Monitor is now running: * Libre Relay 30.0-3 * Bitcoib Knots 29.1"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1980023729402065113) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T21:30Z 119.6K followers, 4164 engagements


"My understanding is as follows (could be wrong): When Bitcoin launched in 2009 there was an OP_Return code in the spend script. This was disabled in July 2010 with a softfork An OP_Return output for data was not thought of as an idea until early 2013. However it would have been valid from launch until 2013. It would have been non-standard from Dec 2010 but still valid. It started to be used a bit in 2013 and then became standard in early 2014 The functionality of the original OP_Return was re-enabled with Taproot in 2021 and is now called OP_SUCCESSx"  
[X Link](https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1980034024945983717) [@BitMEXResearch](/creator/x/BitMEXResearch) 2025-10-19T22:11Z 119.6K followers, XXX engagements