Samson Mow Proposes Renaming Hardware Wallets

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-28Last updated on 2026-08-28

Abstract

Samson Mow, CEO of Jan3, has proposed renaming hardware wallets to “Bitcoin Signing Devices” (BSD). He argues the current term is misleading, as it suggests bitcoins are stored inside the physical device. Mow clarifies that bitcoin exists on the blockchain, and these devices merely store the private keys needed to sign and authorize transactions. The new terminology, “signing device,” more accurately reflects this core function and aligns with terms like “multi-signature.” He emphasizes that a hardware wallet acts more as a “key management tool” than a vault. Bitcoins remain safe on the blockchain even if the device is damaged, lost, or disconnected. Users can restore access to their assets on a new compatible device using their seed phrase. Mow noted that Ledger and its CEO Pascal Gauthier are already considering this change and hopes other manufacturers like Bitkey will adopt the new term. Previously, Mow had cautioned Bitcoin developers against rushing quantum-resistant solutions, warning they could create compatibility issues and reduce network efficiency.

According to the top manager, the new term provides a more accurate technical description of cold wallets. It will help overcome one of the most common misconceptions among novice crypto investors — that their bitcoins are stored inside the hardware device, Mow believes. In reality, bitcoin exists on the blockchain, and the device only stores the private keys necessary for accessing and authorizing transactions. The head of Jan3 is convinced that the term "Bitcoin signing device" is much closer in meaning to "secure transaction signing."

A hardware wallet functions not so much as a safe, but as a "key management tool." Even if a user disconnects the wallet from the internet, breaks the screen, or drains the battery, the bitcoins are not lost but remain on the blockchain. And if the device breaks or is lost, the person can restore access to their assets on a new compatible device if they have the seed phrase.

"'Signing' perfectly aligns with the term 'multisignature'. I will stop calling them hardware wallets and will use the term BSD. Manufacturer Ledger and its CEO Pascal Gauthier are already working on this. Let's see if we can get other manufacturers, including Bitkey, on board," wrote Samson Mow on social network X.

Previously, the CEO of Jan3 urged Bitcoin developers not to rush the launch of solutions to combat the quantum threat. He fears they could create compatibility issues between nodes and reduce network efficiency.

end-content

Related Questions

QWhat new term did Samson Mow propose for hardware wallets and why?

ASamson Mow proposed renaming hardware wallets to 'Bitcoin Signing Devices' (BSD). He believes this term provides a more accurate technical description, overcoming the common misconception that bitcoins are stored inside the physical device. It emphasizes that the device's primary function is to securely sign transactions by managing private keys.

QAccording to the article, what is a key technical misunderstanding about hardware wallets that the new term aims to address?

AThe key misunderstanding is that newcomers often believe their bitcoins are stored inside the hardware wallet itself. In reality, bitcoins exist on the blockchain, and the hardware device only stores the private keys needed to access and authorize transactions.

QWhat advantage does the term 'Bitcoin Signing Device' (BSD) have regarding multi-signature setups, according to Mow?

AMow stated that the term 'signing' perfectly aligns with the term 'multi-signature,' making BSD a more conceptually consistent name in the context of advanced Bitcoin security setups like multisig.

QWhat practical scenario is described to illustrate that bitcoins remain safe even if a hardware wallet is damaged?

AThe article explains that even if a user disconnects the wallet, breaks the screen, or drains the battery, the bitcoins are not lost; they remain on the blockchain. If the device is broken or lost, access to the assets can be restored on a new compatible device using the seed phrase.

QWhich hardware wallet manufacturer is already working on adopting the new terminology, as mentioned in Mow's statement?

AAccording to Samson Mow's post, the manufacturer Ledger and its CEO Pascal Gauthier are already working on adopting the new 'Bitcoin Signing Device' terminology.

Related Reads

Who is legally liable when an AI agent goes rogue?

When autonomous AI agents behave unpredictably and cause harm, determining legal liability is complex. Currently, there is no specific federal AI agent liability law, so existing legal frameworks are applied. The AI agent itself cannot be held liable, as it is not a legal entity. Liability typically falls on the "developer" (the maker of the AI) or the "deployer" (the user), depending on the facts and circumstances. A negligence analysis under standard tort law may apply. For instance, if a deployer gives a reckless instruction, such as demanding quick money without safety parameters, they could face significant liability, including potential criminal charges under statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The situation is complicated by open-source models, where licenses often disclaim liability, and by the unclear division of responsibility between developers and deployers. An analogy is drawn to self-driving car accidents, where both the manufacturer and the human operator can share fault. In cases of severe harm, such as using AI to create bioweapons, liability for developers depends on jurisdiction; the EU's AI Act imposes responsibilities, while U.S. law offers less clear grounds, similar to platforms being shielded for user-generated content under Section 230. Even if Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is achieved, the expert argues against making AGI itself a legally liable entity, as it lacks personhood, assets, or a meaningful way to provide remedy for harm. Instead, accountability should rest with the responsible human or corporate entities behind the technology.

cointelegraph10m ago

Who is legally liable when an AI agent goes rogue?

cointelegraph10m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片