Samson Mow’s Hilarious Quest to Ban Bitcoin Spam: Will It Work? 😂

by

Ah, the eternal squabble of Bitcoin‘s scaling conundrum has taken yet another delightful turn, as the luminaries of the industry engage in a spirited debate over what some have dubbed a veritable “spam epidemic” plaguing the network. One can almost hear the clinking of glasses as they toast to their own brilliance!

Enter Samson Mow, the venerable BTC advocate and CEO of Jan3, who has proposed a rather audacious notion: that mining hardware manufacturers ought to consider withholding their wares, or at the very least, imposing penalties upon those companies that dare to support transactions he so dramatically labels as spam. Oh, the audacity!

Mow’s Hardware Gambit

In a post on the 17th of August, Mow, with the flair of a seasoned playwright, amplified an earlier suggestion by Adam Beck, advocating for social pressure on miners as a means to quell the spam tide. He posited that Block’s Proto Mining division, renowned for crafting some of the most efficient ASIC miners, could refuse to sell or impose exorbitant markups on firms like Marathon Digital (MARA) that engage in the mining of transactions laden with non-financial data. A true masterstroke, one might say!

“If @jack is on board… they could simply publish a statement that they will not sell, or will sell hardware at a markup, to the companies that are enabling spam,” Mow tweeted, as if he were issuing a royal decree.

He speculated that a potential 2% economic penalty would far outweigh the meager profit boost of around 0.5% that might be gleaned from mining spam. Such is the logic of our dear Mow, who believes this would compel public mining firms to mend their ways. A noble endeavor, indeed!

While the willingness of Block to don the mantle of arbiter remains shrouded in mystery, Mow’s proposal has garnered some support. Bitcoin maximalist Matt Kratter, in a moment of uncharacteristic clarity, endorsed the idea, proclaiming:

“Proto Rig should not sell their ASICs to bad actors that support Bitcoin spam. Let MARA buy from the CCP and pay tariffs.” Ah, the sweet taste of sarcasm!

The Core of the Controversy: OP_RETURN

Mow’s remarks have only served to stoke the already fiery debate surrounding Bitcoin Core’s impending changes to OP_RETURN, that transaction type often blamed for the bloated blocks that haunt our dreams. One can only imagine the heated discussions taking place over cups of tea!

In May, the Bitcoin Core development team, in a fit of inspiration, decided to abolish the long-standing 80-byte cap on OP_RETURN outputs in Core 30. This opcode, which allows for the embedding of small data packets in BTC transactions, was historically restricted to prevent the deluge of non-financial data. But alas, the times they are a-changin’!

Developers, led by the intrepid Gregory Sanders, argued that the limit had become obsolete, as miners were already circumventing it. They contend that its removal will foster cleaner data storage, uphold network neutrality, and reflect the existing practices of private mining pools. A veritable utopia of data, one might say!

“This is not endorsing non-financial data usage, but accepting that as a censorship-resistant system, Bitcoin can and will be used for use cases not everyone agrees on,” a past Core statement explained, as if trying to soothe the masses.

Yet, critics like Luke Dashjr have decried this move as “utter insanity,” warning that it would usher in an era of spam on Bitcoin, potentially suffocating legitimate financial transactions and altering the very essence of the network’s purpose. Oh, the drama!

Read More

2025-08-18 21:47