HarryPotterTrumpSonic100Inu (BTC)

In the Bitcoin community, another public feud erupts.

On Jan 3, CEO Samson Mow directly named Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, criticizing him for once again meddling in Bitcoin technical decisions — and this is not the first time.

Mow's wording is blunt: the issues exposed during the block size war ten years ago have not been changed by Armstrong to this day. The typical pattern is to set the tone first, make a decision first, schedule first, and then work backwards with analysis. It lacks humility and a deep understanding of the problem.

Even sharper is the phrase “fix yourself first” — Coinbase's own wallet, due to address reuse issues, has long been vulnerable to quantum attacks, and it frequently crashes during peak trading periods. Before its own infrastructure is repaired, it rushes to dictate Bitcoin protocol changes; where does that confidence come from?

The core controversy is the timetable for Bitcoin's quantum‑resistant upgrade.

Mow's stance is clear: the practical threat of quantum computers is not expected to appear within the next 10 to 20 years, and hastily switching from ECDSA/Schnorr to post‑quantum signatures now carries risks far greater than the benefits. He lists three reasons — a rushed upgrade could expose Bitcoin today to attacks from classical computers; post‑quantum signatures are 10 to 125 times larger, which would significantly compress throughput and could spark a “block size war 2.0”; the worst case is becoming a trojan horse, introducing random number generation or cryptographic backdoors.

The later the solution, the better, is Mow's conclusion.

Behind the battle over technical roadmaps lies a battle over discourse power. Who has the right to define Bitcoin's future has never truly been resolved.

💥BREAKING: Michael Saylor announces MicroStrategy is buying more #Bitcoin

Right on schedule. Like clockwork. https://t.co/yZsdJlzyt2