Reflection on the Bitcoin Block Size War

Recently, I read two historical books documenting the Bitcoin block size debate of the 2010s, representing two opposing viewpoints:

• Jonathan Bier's "The Blocksize War", discussing from the perspective of supporting small Blocks.
• Roger Ver and Steve Patterson's "Hijacking Bitcoin" discusses from the perspective of supporting large Blocks.

Revisiting this historical event that I personally experienced and participated in is fascinating. Although I am familiar with most of the events and the perspectives of both sides, there are still some interesting details that I either didn't know or had forgotten. It is also interesting to re-examine these situations from a new perspective. At that time, I was a pragmatic supporter of "big blocks," opposing extreme growth or absolutist rhetoric. So do I still hold the same view now? I am very curious to explore the answer.

The Viewpoint of the Small Block Faction

According to Bier's account, the core issue of the small block faction is: should Bitcoin increase the block size from 1MB through a hard fork to handle more transactions and reduce fees, at the cost of increasing the difficulty and cost of running and validating nodes?

The small block faction believes that significantly increasing the block size will make it difficult for ordinary users to run nodes, and only large data centers will be able to operate, which cannot be done anonymously.

But more importantly, the small block faction focuses on how protocol-level decisions affect this higher-level issue. They believe that protocol changes (, especially "hard forks" ), should be very rare and require a high level of consensus among protocol users.

Bitcoin should not attempt to compete with payment processors, but should instead become a brand new form of currency that is not controlled by central organizations and central banks. If Bitcoin begins to have an active governance structure or is easily manipulated by miners, exchanges, and other major players, it will lose this unique advantage.

The small block faction is most opposed to the large block faction's frequent attempts to gather a few major players to push for the changes they want, which is contrary to the governance views of the small block faction.

The Viewpoint of the Big Block Faction

According to Ver's narrative, the core issue that the big block faction focuses on is: what should Bitcoin actually be? Is it a store of value ( digital gold ) or a means of payment ( digital cash )?

For the big block faction, the original vision of Bitcoin is clearly digital cash. This is even explicitly mentioned in the white paper. They often cite two other works of Satoshi Nakamoto to support their point:

1. The section on Simplified Payment Verification in the white paper discusses how, when the blocks get larger, users can use Merkle proofs to verify payments without needing to validate the entire chain.

2. Satoshi Nakamoto advocated for gradually increasing the Block size through hard forks on Bitcointalk.

The big block faction believes that the shift from digital cash to digital gold is a change determined and imposed on the entire project by a small group of core developers.

The second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network proposed by the small block faction have many shortcomings in practice. Even if everyone turns to the Lightning Network, it will ultimately still require increasing the block size to accommodate hundreds of millions of users. Furthermore, securely receiving Bitcoin on the Lightning Network requires running online nodes and checking on-chain status weekly, and these complexities may drive users to use the Lightning Network in a centralized manner.

The Nature of Disagreements Between Both Parties

Ver's description of the specific dispute is consistent with the small block faction: both sides acknowledge that the small block faction places more emphasis on the convenience of running nodes, while the large block faction places more emphasis on low transaction fees.

But Bier and Ver have entirely different views on deeper issues:

• For Bier, the small block faction represents users, opposing powerful groups of miners and exchanges that attempt to control the network for their own benefit. Small blocks maintain the decentralization of Bitcoin by ensuring that ordinary users can run nodes.

• For Ver, the large block faction represents users, opposing a minority of self-proclaimed "elite clergy" and venture capital-backed companies like Blockstream (. These companies profit from the second-layer solutions required by the small block roadmap. Large blocks maintain the decentralization of Bitcoin by ensuring that users can afford on-chain transaction fees, without relying on centralized second-layer infrastructure.

The closest point of agreement between the two sides on the "debate clause" is that Bier acknowledges that many of the large block proponents mean well, but criticizes their lack of ability; whereas Ver tends to attribute malice to the small block proponents, but rarely criticizes their capability.

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

My views then and now

At that time, I generally supported the big block faction, mainly based on the following points:

• A key intention of Bitcoin is digital cash, and high transaction fees could stifle this use case. The second layer protocols have not been thoroughly tested, and it is irresponsible for the small block faction to insist on this route.

• I do not agree with the small block faction's statements about "user control" and "users not supporting large blocks." They have never clearly defined who the "users" are or how to measure user intent. The large block faction has proposed at least three different methods for calculating users: ) hash power, statements from well-known companies, and discussions on social media (, while the small block faction has rejected each method.

• Segregated Witness, as a compromise solution for the small block faction, is too complex compared to simply increasing block size through hard forks. The small block faction has formed the dogma that "soft forks are good, hard forks are bad," and I strongly oppose this view.

• The small block faction has indeed engaged in improper censorship on social media, such as deleting posts, to impose their views.

At the same time, I am also disappointed with some of the practices of the big block faction, which are also reflected in Bier's book:

• The big block faction has never been willing to propose any realistic principles for block size limits. The view that "block size is determined by the market" means that miners can arbitrarily decide the block size, and I strongly oppose this mechanism.

• The big block faction began to advocate that miners should control Bitcoin, a philosophy that has obvious flaws.

• The big block faction shows obvious incompetence in technical implementation. Their code quality is poor, with serious vulnerabilities, and they lack understanding of important details like erasure protection. They call for multiple Bitcoin software implementations, but their "alternative client" is actually just a simple fork of Bitcoin Core.

• Some major supporters of the big block faction believe that Craig Wright falsely claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, which further damages their credibility.

Overall, I tend to agree more with Ver's views on macro issues, but I more often agree with Bier's views on specific details. The big block camp is correct on the core issue, which is that blocks need to be larger, preferably achieved through a simple hard fork. However, the small block camp makes fewer technical mistakes, and their position is also less likely to lead to absurd outcomes.

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

Unilateral Capability Trap

By reading these two books, I observed a common political tragedy:

One side monopolizes all capable individuals, but uses its power to promote narrow and biased viewpoints; the other side correctly identifies the problem but is immersed in opposition and fails to cultivate the technical ability to execute its own plans.

In this case, the ruling party is often criticized as authoritarian, but its supporters argue that the opposition only complains and would fail within days if they were truly in power.

To some extent, it is not the opposition's fault: without a platform to execute and accumulate experience, it is difficult to become proficient in execution. However, in the block size debate, the big block faction seems to be completely unaware of the need to have the capability to execute; they thought they could win solely based on their correctness regarding the block size issue. The big block faction ultimately paid a heavy price for focusing on opposition rather than construction: even after forking into their own chain ) Bitcoin Cash (, they split again twice in a short period.

This issue is a fundamental challenge faced by anyone trying to establish a democratic or diversified political entity, project, or community. Smart people want to work with other smart people. If two different groups are evenly matched, people tend to choose the side that aligns more closely with their values, and this balance can be stable. However, if this tendency becomes too one-sided, it will enter a different state of balance that is difficult to restore.

Opponents can mitigate the unilateral capability trap by recognizing the existence of the problem and consciously cultivating their abilities. However, sometimes merely being aware of the issue is not enough. If there are more powerful and in-depth methods to prevent and escape the unilateral capability trap, we would benefit immensely.

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

The Importance of Technological Innovation

While reading these two books, a notable omission is the discussion of new technologies such as ZK-SNARKs. Even by the mid-2010s, the potential of ZK-SNARKs in terms of scalability and privacy was well known, yet they seem to have been completely left out of the discussions regarding the future roadmap of Bitcoin.

The ultimate solution to alleviating political tensions is not compromise, but new technology: discovering entirely new ways to provide both sides with more of what they want. There are several such examples in Ethereum.

• BLS aggregation allows Ethereum's proof of stake to handle more validators and reduces the minimum staking balance.
• EIP-7702 achieves the goals of ERC-3074 in a way that is more compatible with smart contract wallets.
• Multi-dimensional Gas has increased Ethereum's capacity to accommodate rollup data without increasing the worst-case block size.

When an ecosystem stops embracing new technologies, it inevitably stagnates and becomes more contentious. This is a key reason why I feel uneasy about the views on degrowth and "the inability to solve social issues with technology."

A key issue for Bitcoin's future is whether it can become a technologically advanced ecosystem. The development of Inscriptions and BitVM has created new possibilities for the second layer. It is hoped that ETH's acquisition of an ETF can lead to a renewed recognition that Bitcoin needs technical improvements.

![Vitalik's new article: Reflection on the Bitcoin Block Size War])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-69baf5bb8f6591751aac87c88e655e38.webp(

Summary and Insights

Analyzing the success and failure of Bitcoin has important implications for Ethereum and other digital communities:

• The focus on client diversity in Ethereum stems from observing the failures caused by the single client team of Bitcoin.
• Ethereum's second-layer solutions learn from the limitations of Bitcoin in this regard.
• Ethereum aims to cultivate a diverse ecosystem to avoid a one-sided capability trap.

For emerging digital separation strategies such as network nation movements, the experience of Bitcoin Cash shows that the movement to fork solutions can easily fall into a cycle of repeated splits and an inability to cooperate. Rebel network nations need to learn how to implement and build practically, rather than just having parties and sharing the atmosphere. Zuzalu is, to some extent, my attempt to promote this change.

These two books document the first truly high-risk civil war of the "Digital Nation," providing important lessons for the other digital nations we will build in the coming decades. It is recommended to read these two books with a broader perspective, not just focusing on Bitcoin itself.

![Vitalik's New Article: Reflections on the Bitcoin Block Size War])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-3596e170ec36f8a39d3b64500ed87ef9.webp(