tl;dr
Bitcoin's scaling dispute intensifies amid a "spam epidemic" on the network. Samson Mow proposed that mining hardware manufacturers, like Block's Proto Mining, should refuse sales or impose penalties on miners supporting spam transactions. This builds on earlier calls to socially pressure miners to ...
Bitcoin’s ongoing scaling dispute has taken a fresh turn as industry insiders grapple with what many describe as a “spam epidemic” on the network. Samson Mow, a staunch Bitcoin advocate and CEO of Jan3, recently proposed that manufacturers of mining hardware should consider refusing sales or imposing penalties on entities that support transactions labeled as spam.
Mow's suggestion, shared in a social media post on August 17, builds on Adam Beck’s earlier proposal to apply social pressure on miners to reduce spam. Specifically, Mow speculated that Block’s Proto Mining division, a leading manufacturer of highly efficient ASIC miners, might refuse to sell or charge a premium to companies like Marathon Digital that mine transactions containing non-financial data. He posited that a 2% economic penalty would outweigh the modest 0.5% profit margin from mining spam, theoretically forcing public mining firms to abandon such practices.
The proposition has garnered some support within the Bitcoin community, with Bitcoin maximalist Matt Kratter backing the idea, suggesting that Proto Rig should avoid selling ASICs to bad actors and mockingly recommending that Marathon Digital “buy from the CCP and pay tariffs.”
At the heart of the controversy lies Bitcoin Core’s planned changes to OP_RETURN, a transaction type often blamed for bloating Bitcoin blocks. In May, the development team approved removing the long-standing 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN outputs in the upcoming Core 30 release. This opcode allows embedding small data packets within Bitcoin transactions but was traditionally limited to prevent an influx of non-financial data.
Gregory Sanders and other developers argue the cap is outdated since miners already bypass it, and removing it would encourage cleaner data storage, uphold network neutrality, and simply reflect existing practices among private mining pools. A statement from Core emphasized that this move is not an endorsement of non-financial data use but an acknowledgment of Bitcoin's role as a censorship-resistant system capable of supporting diverse use cases.
However, critics like Luke Dashjr have vehemently opposed the change, calling it “utter insanity,” warning that lifting the cap could increase spam transactions, crowd out legitimate financial usage, and fundamentally alter Bitcoin’s core purpose.