Ethereum Founder Revisits Bitcoin Block Size War, Sides With ‘Big Blockers’

In
a
blog
post,
Ethereum
founder
Vitalik
Buterin
revisited
the
pivotal
Bitcoin
block
size
debate
that
starkly
divided
the
Bitcoin
community
mainly
from
2015
to
2017.
Engaging
deeply
with
two
authoritative
books,
Buterin
re-examined
the
historical
nuances
of
this
schism
from
his
unique
perspective
as
both
a
participant
and
a
thought
leader
in
the
crypto
space.

Buterin’s
blog

entry,
entitled
“Some
reflections
on
the
Bitcoin
block
size
war,”
unpacks
the
contrasting
narratives
provided
by
Jonathan
Bier’s
The
Blocksize
War
and

Roger
Ver
and
Steve
Patterson’s
Hijacking
Bitcoin.
These
books
represent
the
pro-small-block
and
pro-big-block
viewpoints,
respectively,
offering
a
lens
into
the
ideological
and
technical
divides
that
characterized
the
debate.

Bitcoin
Small
Blockers
Vs.
Big
Blockers

Buterin
described
the
small
blockers’
perspective
primarily
through
insights
derived
from
Bier’s
book.
This
faction,
concerned
with
maintaining
the
decentralized,
user-accessible
nature
of
Bitcoin,
argued
against
large
increases
in
block
size.
They
feared
that
larger
blocks
would
necessitate
more
substantial
hardware
requirements
for
node
operators,
potentially
centralizing
the
network
to
those
who
could
afford
such
setups.

A
key
quote
highlighted
by
Buterin
encapsulates
this
concern:
“[If
the
block
size
were
much
bigger],
you
would
need
a
big
data
center
to
run
a
node,
and
you
won’t
be
able
to
do
it
anonymously.”
Moreover,
small
blockers
were
portrayed
by
Buterin
as
being
deeply
vested
in
the
governance
model
of
Bitcoin.

They
preferred
infrequent,
consensus-driven
changes
to
avoid
the
risks
of
centralized
control
and
manipulation
by
a
limited
number
of
stakeholders.
The
New
York
Agreement
of
2017,
which
sought
to
resolve
the
block
size
dispute
through
a
compromise
among
major
exchanges,
miners,
and
other
stakeholders,
was
cited
as
anathema
to
small
blockers’
governance
ideals,
which
favored
rule
by
the
general
user
base
over
a
corporate
consortium.

Conversely,
the
narrative
of
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
towards
viewing
Bitcoin
solely
as
a
“store
of
value”
or
“digital
gold,”
which
they
felt
betrayed
the
original
intent
outlined
in

Satoshi
Nakamoto‘s
whitepaper.

Buterin
relayed
their
arguments,
emphasizing
that
large
blocks
were
essential
for
keeping
transaction
fees
low,
thereby
fostering
greater
adoption
and
utility
of
Bitcoin
for
everyday
transactions.
The
big
blockers
also
criticized
the
layer
2
solutions
like
the

Lightning
Network,
which
were
advocated
by
small
blockers
as
alternative
methods
to
manage
transaction
loads
without
enlarging
block
sizes.

Ver
and
Patterson
argued
that
such
solutions
were
complex,
required
users
to
maintain
perpetual
online
connections,
and
ultimately
would
not
scale
sufficiently
to
accommodate
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
the
practical
concerns
about
high
fees
undermining
Bitcoin’s
utility,
he
expressed
frustration
over
time
with
both
camps’
extremes.
He
remarked:

In
my
view,
big
blockers
were
right
on
the
central
question
that
blocks
needed
to
be
bigger,
and
that
it
was
best
to
accomplish
this
with
a
clean
simple
hard
fork
like
Satoshi
described,
but
small
blockers
committed
far
fewer
embarrassing
technical
faux
pas,
and
had
fewer
positions
that
led
to
absurd
outcomes
if
you
tried
to
take
them
to
their
logical
conclusion.

Buterin’s
Lessons
For
Ethereum

Buterin
advocates
for
a
balanced
approach,
emphasizing
“medium
predictability”
in
transaction
costs
and
node
operational
requirements.
He
highlighted
Ethereum’s
strategies
as
an
example,
where
gradual
increases
in
block
capacity
have
been
paired
with
fee
adjustments
to
manage
growth
and
scalability
effectively.

Buterin
lamented
the
omission
of
significant
technological
advancements
like

ZK-SNARKs
in
the
discourse,
pointing
out
their
potential
to
resolve
scalability
and
privacy
challenges
without
necessitating
divisive
compromises.
He
suggested
that
embracing
new
technologies
could
defuse
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
is
not
much
excuse
for
this:
even
by
the
mid-2010s,
ZK-SNARKs
and
their
potential
to
revolutionize
scalability
(and
privacy)
were
well
known.
Zcash
launched
in
October
2016.
The
scalability
implications
of
ZK-SNARKs
were
explored
a
little
bit
by
Gregory
Maxwell
in
2013,
but
they
did
not
seem
to
get
taken
into
account
at
all
in
discussions
of
Bitcoin’s
future
roadmap.

Buterin’s
blog
post
serves
not
only
as
a
reflection
on
a
contentious
chapter
in
Bitcoin’s
history
but
also
as
a
cautionary
tale
for
Ethereum
and
other
blockchain
communities.
He
underscored
the
importance
of
inclusive
governance
and
technological
innovation
in
avoiding
“one-sided
competence
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
in
Bitcoin
not
because
I
want
to
put
Bitcoin
down
as
a
way
to
lift
Ethereum
up;
[…]
I
care
about
analyzing
these
issues
because
both
Ethereum,
and
other
digital
(and
even
physical)
communities
that
I
care
about,
stand
to
learn
a
lot
from
understanding
what
happened,
what
went
well,
and
what
could
have
done
better,”
Buterin
concluded.

At
press
time,
BTC
traded
at
$68,498.

Featured
image
from
CNBC,
chart
from
TradingView.com