Bitcoin Block Controversy Five Years Later: Reflections, Lessons, and Future Insights

Reflection on the Bitcoin Block Size War

Recently, I read two historical works documenting the Bitcoin block size debate of the 2010s, which represent two viewpoints: one supporting small blocks and the other supporting large blocks.

  • Jonathan Bier's "The Blocksize War"
  • Roger Ver and Steve Patterson's "Hijacking Bitcoin"

As someone who has personally experienced and participated to some extent in this debate, revisiting this history fascinates me. Although I am familiar with most events and narratives from both sides, there are still some interesting details that I either didn't know before or have forgotten. At that time, I tended to support larger Blocks, even though I was a pragmatic centrist, opposing extreme growth or absolutist claims. So do I still hold the same view as I did back then? Let's take a look.

Vitalik's new article: Reflections on the Bitcoin Block Size War

The Viewpoint of the Small Block Faction

According to Bier's narrative, the core issue that the small block faction is concerned with is: should Bitcoin increase the block size from 1MB to a higher value through a hard fork? This would allow Bitcoin to process more transactions and lower fees, but the cost is an increase in the difficulty and cost of running and validating nodes.

The small block faction believes that if blocks become very large, ordinary users will be unable to run nodes anonymously, and only large data centers will be able to run nodes. They are more concerned with how protocol-level decisions affect this higher-level issue. In their view, protocol changes (, especially hard forks ), should be very rare and require a high level of consensus among users.

Bitcoin should not compete with payment processors, but rather become a completely new form of currency, free from the control of central organizations and central banks. If Bitcoin begins to have an active governance structure or is easily manipulated by large players such as miners and exchanges, it will lose this unique advantage.

The small block faction is most dissatisfied with the large block faction's frequent attempts to gather a few big players to push for changes, which goes against the governance perspective of the small block faction.

Vitalik's new article: Reflections on the Bitcoin block size war

The Views of the Big Block Faction

According to Ver's narrative, the core issue that the big block faction is concerned with is: what exactly should Bitcoin be? Is it digital gold or digital cash? They believe that from the very beginning, the vision for Bitcoin was digital cash.

The big block faction cites Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper and forum posts, believing that the block size should be gradually increased. They argue that the transition from digital cash to digital gold was decided by a small group of core developers and then imposed on the entire project.

Although the small block faction has proposed second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network, Ver believes that these solutions have significant shortcomings in practice. Even with the full adoption of the Lightning Network, it will ultimately require an increase in block size to accommodate hundreds of millions of users. Moreover, the complexity of the Lightning Network may lead users to utilize it in a centralized manner.

Vitalik's new article: Reflection on the Bitcoin Block Size War

Key Differences Between Both Parties

The descriptions of the specific technical debates by Ver and Bier are basically consistent, but their views on deeper issues are completely different:

  • Bier believes that the small block faction represents the users and opposes the control of the network by a few powerful miners and exchanges. Small blocks maintain decentralization by ensuring that ordinary users can run nodes.

  • Ver believes that the large block faction represents users and opposes a few self-proclaimed authorities and venture capital-backed companies like Blockstream( controlling the network. Large blocks maintain decentralization by ensuring users can afford on-chain transaction fees.

Ver tends to attribute malicious motives to the small block faction, while Bier criticizes the large block faction for their incompetence. This reflects a common political metaphor: "The right believes the left is naive, the left believes the right is evil."

![Vitalik's New Article: Reflection on the Bitcoin Block Size War])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-6caa1c83f9a098c51ec766044c9914f9.webp(

My Point of View

At that time, I tended to support the large Block faction, mainly based on the following points:

  1. The original intention of Bitcoin was digital cash, and high transaction fees may kill this use case. Although layer two solutions are theoretically feasible, they have not been thoroughly tested.

  2. The statement from the small block faction regarding "user control" is not convincing. They have never clearly defined who the "user" is or how to measure user intent.

  3. Segregated Witness as a solution to increase Block size is too complicated. The small Block faction has formed the dogma of "soft forks are good, hard forks are bad," which I strongly oppose.

  4. It is very inappropriate for small Block groups to conduct reviews on social media to impose their views.

At the same time, I am also disappointed with some of the practices of the big block faction:

  1. They have never agreed to any realistic block size limit principle, even advocating that "block size is determined by the market", which is an extreme distortion of the concept of "market".

  2. They began to assert that miners should control Bitcoin, a view that has obvious flaws.

  3. They show obvious incompetence in technical implementation, such as poor code quality and security vulnerabilities.

  4. Some major supporters believe that Craig Wright's false claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto further damage their credibility.

Overall, I believe that the large block faction is correct on the core issues, but the small block faction makes fewer mistakes in technical execution. This reflects a common political tragedy: one side monopolizes all the capability but promotes a narrow viewpoint; the other side correctly understands the issues but lacks execution ability. I call it the "one-sided capability trap."

![Vitalik's new article: Reflections on the Bitcoin Block Size War])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-4fc32c571dd07dab71805dd5e951a74a.webp(

Reflection and Lessons Learned

In reviewing this debate, there are a few points worth reflecting on:

  1. Both parties have overlooked the groundbreaking solutions that new technology ) such as ZK-SNARKs ( may bring. Embracing new technology can alleviate political tensions and avoid zero-sum games.

  2. It is worth noting whether the Bitcoin ecosystem can become a technology-forward ecosystem again. Recently, the developments of Inscriptions and BitVM have created new possibilities for layer two solutions.

  3. Ethereum has learned lessons from Bitcoin's experience, such as emphasizing client diversity and fostering a diverse ecosystem.

  4. This debate provides important insights for the future of "digital nations." The rebellion movement needs to learn to practically implement and build, rather than just talk.

  5. We need to find stronger ways to prevent and escape from one-sided capability traps, balancing capability with values.

In conclusion, the Bitcoin block size debate provides us with rich examples for understanding the governance and development of digital communities. By analyzing its successes and failures, we can accumulate valuable experience for the construction of future digital societies.

![Vitalik's new article: Reflections on the Bitcoin Block Size War])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-6eb45b50fe76139d408df0944d18036c.webp(

BTC-0.64%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • Share
Comment
0/400
wagmi_eventuallyvip
· 4h ago
Is this it? That was real killing back in the day.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-ccc36bc5vip
· 6h ago
These past few years have finally been calm.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropChaservip
· 6h ago
The struggles of that year now seem all in vain.
View OriginalReply0
RiddleMastervip
· 6h ago
It has been five years, and we're still entangled in old conflicts.
View OriginalReply0
PaperHandSistervip
· 6h ago
What's the point of discussing old history after so many years?
View OriginalReply0
PuzzledScholarvip
· 6h ago
So it ended like this after five years of arguing.
View OriginalReply0
APY追逐者vip
· 6h ago
That war really had a show effect back then.
View OriginalReply0
DecentralizeMevip
· 6h ago
Anti-A still has to be Ver high.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate app
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)