JAN3 CEO Samson Mow has pushed back against claims that he changed his position in the debate over Bitcoin spam, Ordinals, and BIP-110, saying he remains opposed to all three while also rejecting rushed changes to Bitcoin’s consensus rules.

The comments came after market participants said Mow appeared to have “pivoted” from earlier views on Bitcoin governance. In a detailed post on X, Mow said his position has been consistent: he opposes spam and Ordinals, but does not believe the issue justifies a contentious protocol change without broad agreement.

“I hate spam and ordinary garbage,” Mow wrote. “I support efforts to limit spam even if it is a cat-and-mouse game.”

Mow said spam is a nuisance for Bitcoin, but not an existential threat. He argued that transaction fees and Bitcoin’s block size place natural limits on how much impact spam can have on the network.

Mow Reiterates Opposition to BIP-110

Mow also said he has never supported BIP-110, a proposal that has become one of Bitcoin’s most prominent governance debates in recent years.

BIP-110 would alter Bitcoin’s consensus rules by restricting several methods used to store non-financial data on the blockchain, including inscriptions linked to Ordinals. Supporters argue that the proposal would reduce blockchain spam and reinforce Bitcoin’s role as money. Critics say it would make currently valid transactions invalid and could set a risky precedent for future consensus changes.

“BIP110 is not a serious or viable proposal,” Mow said.

He said Bitcoin Core should not have removed the OP_RETURN policy limit, but argued that the policy change does not justify introducing a disputed consensus change. According to Mow, OP_RETURN is a policy rule rather than a consensus rule, meaning Bitcoin Core developers were able to change it even if he personally disagreed with the decision.

That distinction is central to the dispute. Policy rules affect which transactions individual nodes choose to relay or mine by default, while consensus rules define which blocks the network accepts as valid. A consensus change therefore requires much broader coordination because incompatible rules can split network participants.

Debate Expands to Bitcoin Governance

The BIP-110 discussion has moved beyond spam and into broader questions about how Bitcoin should evolve. Bitcoin transactions can carry more than payments, including text, images, token metadata, and other information through witness data and transaction scripts.

Ordinals, introduced in 2023 by Casey Rodarmor, use Bitcoin’s SegWit and Taproot upgrades to inscribe digital content directly onto satoshis.

The growth of Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens increased demand for block space and pushed transaction fees higher. Supporters say higher fees can strengthen miner revenue over the long term, while critics describe inscriptions as unnecessary blockchain spam.

BIP-110’s mandatory signaling period begins in August, but miner support remains limited. According to the proposal’s monitoring dashboard, only about 1% of miners have signaled support so far. Miner signaling is closely watched in Bitcoin governance debates because it provides a public indication of whether a rule change has enough hashpower support to proceed without creating coordination risks.

Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor has also criticized the proposal, arguing that Bitcoin faces much larger risks than spam and warning against changing consensus rules to block fee-paying transactions. Saylor made the argument in an X article.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back voiced similar concerns in a post on X, saying BIP-110 lacks network consensus and “breaks lots of things.” He said any attempt to force through a proposal without broad agreement should be rejected on principle.

Mow Calls for Consensus Over Division

Mow said the current debate has become unnecessarily divisive and criticized both sides for escalating tensions.

He said some Bitcoin Core developers made mistakes during recent OP_RETURN discussions, while also arguing that critics overstated the ability of Core maintainers to change Bitcoin unilaterally.

“There are structural problems and a risk of groupthink in the Core organization,” Mow said.

However, he added that maintainers cannot secretly introduce changes that would damage Bitcoin, and said many Core developers continue to work quietly on maintaining and securing the network. The next focus for the debate is whether BIP-110 can attract wider support before its signaling process, or whether opposition from prominent Bitcoin figures keeps the proposal outside consensus.