Samson Mow Pushes Mining Hardware Ban As Bitcoin Core 30 Sparks Spam Debate

The constant plaice dispute by Bitcoin has taken a new turn while industrial figures are debating how to deal with what many call a “spam epidemic” on the network.

For a long time BTC Advocate and Jan3 CEO Samson MOW has suggested that manufacturers of Mijnbouwhardwaremansen should consider refusing the sale, or at least impose fines, for companies that support transactions that he describes as spam.

MOW’s Hardware Gambit

In a post of August 17 on x, strengthen An earlier proposal from Adam Beck to exert social pressure on miners as a means to limit spam on the Bitcoin network, MOW suggested that Block’s Proto Mining Division, who builds some of the most efficient ASIC miners, could refuse or commit to companies such as Marathon Digital (Mara).

“If @jack is on board … they can easily publish a statement that they will not sell or sell hardware at a Markup, to the companies that engage spam,” tweeted Mow.

He theoretized that imposing A potential economic fine of 2% would outweigh the small profit boost of about 0.5% that comes from Mijnenspam. According to him, this is the public mining agencies to stop.

Although Block’s willingness to act as a referee is currently unknown, the idea of MOW has received support in some quarters. Bitcoin Maxi Matt Kratter approved it stated:

“Proto Rig should not sell their ASICs to bad actors who support Bitcoin spam. Let Mara buy the CCP and pay rates.”

The core of the controversy: on_return

MOW’s comments have intensified an already heated debate around the upcoming changes from Bitcoin Core in Op_Rreturn, the transaction type often accused of inflated blocks.

In May, the Bitcoin Core development team decided to eliminate the long-standing 80-byte cap on_return outputs in Core 30. With the OPCODE, small data packages could be embedded in BTC transactions, but was historically limited to prevent non-financial data from flooding blocks.

Developers, led by Gregory Sanders,, however, argued that the limit was outdated because miners were already circumventing it. They claim that removing it will promote the storage of cleaner data, retain network neutrality and also reflect existing practices by private mining pools.

“This does not endorse non-financial data use, but accepts that if a censorship-resistant system, Bitcoin can and will be used for user cases that not everyone agrees,” explained a nuclear statement from the past.

Nevertheless, critics such as Luke Dashjr have described the move as ‘extreme insanity’, warning that it would lead to an increase in spam on Bitcoin, which may be levied legitimate financial transactions and changes the main objective of the network.