The Bitcoin community is embroiled in a heated dispute over upcoming changes to OP_RETURN policy in Bitcoin Core. JAN3 CEO Samson Mow has now taken the controversial stance of proposing a fork of the software, arguing that it is necessary to “fix misaligned incentives and fund devs with a better structure.”
The Fork Proposal: Redesigning Governance and Funding
Speaking on a recent podcast, Mow stated that the current “core wars” — as some call the OP_RETURN guardrail removal — make it nearly impossible to push changes through the existing development pipeline. “If there is economic power saying bitcoin is money, then this is how you could show it,” Mow stressed. He envisions a fork that maintains the current BTC ledger but introduces a different charter and funding model.
Under Mow’s plan, developers working on the new fork would remain anonymous to ensure they are not driven by personal fame but by contribution to Bitcoin’s long-term health. He also called for a grant-based system to support these developers, effectively shifting financial incentives away from current Core maintainers.
Earlier, Mow had advocated blacklisting developers acting in “bad faith” and cutting off funding to organizations that finance developers pushing “contentious changes.” The fork proposal is a more direct escalation of his criticism.
OP_RETURN and the Rise of Knots
The trigger for the controversy is Bitcoin Core’s planned removal of OP_RETURN guardrails, which currently limit the amount of non-monetary data that can be stored on the blockchain. Critics, including Mow, argue this opens the door to spam and undermines Bitcoin’s use as sound money. Bitcoin Core developers maintain the change is aligned with Bitcoin’s ethos of permissionless innovation.
Since the announcement, adoption of the alternative node software Knots — which retains stricter OP_RETURN limits — has surged. According to public node data, 1,868 out of 21,767 reachable Bitcoin nodes now run Knots, representing approximately 8.6% of the network. This figure underscores growing dissatisfaction with Core’s direction.
Broader Implications
Mow’s fork proposal is not merely a technical one; it is a political statement about who controls Bitcoin’s development. By suggesting a parallel software version with a different incentive structure, he challenges the authority of existing maintainers and the Bitcoin Core improvement process.
The proposal has drawn mixed reactions. Some community members support the idea of a “healthy” fork that provides an alternative path, while others warn that fragmentation could weaken network effects. However, Mow remains adamant: “If there is economic power saying bitcoin is money, then this is how you could show it.”
Whether the fork will materialize remains uncertain. What is clear is that the OP_RETURN debate has exposed deep rifts within the Bitcoin developer ecosystem, and Mow’s intervention adds fuel to an already blazing fire.