‘$1 Million BTC’ Samson Mow Exposes Inside Risk for Bitcoin

The Bitcoin community has been having a heated debate, and now one of its most outspoken members is raising the alarm. Samson Mow, the former Blockstream CSO and current CEO of JAN3, says that Bitcoin Core — the main software most nodes use — has become a “risk to Bitcoin.”

It was in response to a thread by Bitcoin developer James O’Beirne, who challenged recent claims that Bitcoin users are completely free to “just do things” if they don’t agree with Core. That idea was pushed by Jameson Lopp, who said sovereignty is a mindset — and that people should stop acting like they need permission to act.

However, as O’Beirne pointed out, this view is a bit naive. To him, Bitcoin Core has a “tremendous amount of sticky power.” Most businesses and node operators don’t switch away from it, not because they can’t, but because of the huge risks and costs involved in doing so. It’s too complicated, too entrenched and too trusted — even if there are other options out there.

Bitcoin Core has become a risk to Bitcoin. https://t.co/FMLwM7LV0c

— Samson Mow (@Excellion) June 8, 2025

Samson Mow took it a step further, reposting O’Beirne’s comments with a blunt statement: “Bitcoin Core has become a risk to Bitcoin.”

What it’s all about

It all started with a technical proposal earlier this year to remove the 83-byte limit for the OP_RETURN field — a change that would allow more data to be attached to Bitcoin transactions. While the change wouldn’t affect consensus rules, it sparked some intense backlash. Some people were worried that it could lead to spam, bloat the blockchain and move BTC away from its main purpose as a monetary tool.

Supporters, like Lopp and Peter Todd, say the change improves innovation and removes an outdated limitation. But to people like Mow, it’s not just about the code — it’s about how decisions are made and who is really in control.

With Bitcoin Knots — an alternative client — now gaining adoption, this dispute feels less like a technical disagreement and more like a deeper governance battle over Bitcoin’s future.

Source