In a blog post, ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin revisited the fundamental bitcoin block size debate that sharply divided the bitcoin community, primarily between 2015 and 2017. Interacting deeply with two authoritative books, Buterin re-examined the historical nuances of this schism from his unique perspective as both a participant and thought leader in the crypto space.
Buterin's blog. x.com/VitalikButerin/status/1796460519542378669″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener nofollow”>entrance, titled “Some Thoughts on the bitcoin Block Size War,” analyzes the contrasting narratives provided by The Blocksize War by Jonathan Bier and Hijacking bitcoin by Roger Ver and Steve Patterson. These books represent the pro-small bloc and pro-big bloc views, respectively, and offer insight into the ideological and technical divisions that characterized the debate.
Small bitcoin Blockers Vs. Great blockers
Buterin described the small blockers' perspective primarily through ideas derived from Bier's book. This faction, concerned with maintaining the decentralized and user-accessible nature of bitcoin, opposed large increases in block sizes. They feared that larger blocks would necessitate more substantial hardware requirements for node operators, potentially centralizing the network for those who could afford such setups.
A key quote highlighted by Buterin summarizes this concern: “(If the block size were much larger), you would need a large data center to run a node and you won't be able to do it anonymously.” Additionally, Buterin described small blockers as deeply attached to the bitcoin governance model.
They preferred infrequent, consensus-driven changes to avoid the risks of centralized control and manipulation by a limited number of stakeholders. The 2017 New York Agreement, which sought to resolve the block size dispute through a compromise between major exchanges, miners and other stakeholders, was cited as anathema to the governance ideals of small blockers, that favored governance of the general user base over a corporate basis. consortium.
By contrast, the narrative of the big blockers, as detailed in Ver and Patterson's work, paints a picture of a group committed to bitcoin's utility as “digital cash.” This group lamented the shift toward a view of bitcoin solely as a “store of value” or “digital gold,” which they felt betrayed the original intent outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper.
Buterin conveyed his arguments, emphasizing that large blocks were essential to keeping transaction fees low, thus encouraging greater adoption and utility of bitcoin for everyday transactions. Large blockers also criticized layer 2 solutions such as the Lightning Network, which were advocated by small blockers as alternative methods of managing transaction loads without increasing block sizes.
Ver and Patterson argued that such solutions were complex, required users to maintain perpetual online connections, and would ultimately not scale enough to meet global demand without also increasing the btc block size.
Reflecting on his own stance, Buterin revealed a nuanced position. Initially sympathetic to the big blockers due to practical concerns about high fees undermining bitcoin's utility, he over time expressed frustration with the extremes of both sides. He commented:
In my opinion, the big blockers were right on the core point that blocks needed to be larger, and that this was best achieved with a clean and simple hard fork like the one Satoshi described, but the small blockers made far fewer steps in embarrassing technical falsehoods and had fewer positions that would lead to absurd results if one tried to take them to their logical conclusion.
Buterin's lessons for ethereum
Buterin advocates a balanced approach, emphasizing “medium predictability” in transaction costs and operational requirements of nodes. He highlighted ethereum strategies as an example, where incremental increases in block capacity have been combined with fee adjustments to manage growth and scalability effectively.
Buterin lamented the omission of significant technological advances like ZK-SNARKs from the speech, noting their potential to solve scalability and privacy challenges without the need for divisive compromises. He suggested that adopting new technologies could ease political tensions by providing solutions that align with the interests of various stakeholder groups. Buterin writes:
One incredibly glaring omission from both books stood out to me more than anything else: the word “ZK-SNARK” appeared exactly zero times in both books. There aren't many excuses for this: even in the mid-2010s, ZK-SNARKs and their potential to revolutionize scalability (and privacy) were well known. Zcash launched in October 2016. Gregory Maxwell explored the scalability implications of ZK-SNARKs a bit in 2013, but they didn't seem to be factored in at all in discussions about bitcoin's future roadmap.
Buterin's blog post serves not only as a reflection on a controversial chapter in bitcoin's history, but also as a warning to ethereum and other blockchain communities. He underscored the importance of inclusive governance and technological innovation to avoid “one-sided competition traps,” where a lack of diverse skills and perspectives can stifle growth and lead to entrenched conflicts.
“I care about examining the successes and failures of bitcoin, not because I want to dismiss bitcoin as a way to elevate ethereum; (…) It is important to me to analyze these topics because both ethereum and other digital (and even physical) communities that interest me can learn a lot by understanding what happened, what went well and what could have been done better,” Buterin. he concluded.
At the time of this publication, btc was trading at $68,498.
Featured image from CNBC, chart from TradingView.com
