Ethereum
Big Bitcoin blockers ‘were right,’ says Ethereum founder
In a blog post, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin returned to the crucial Bitcoin block size debate that deeply divided the Bitcoin community, primarily from 2015 to 2017. Engaging deeply in 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 entrancetitled “Some Thoughts on the Bitcoin Blocksize War,” unveils the contrasting narratives provided by Jonathan Bier’s The Blocksize War and Roger Ver and Hijacking Bitcoin by Steve Patterson. These books represent the pro-small bloc and pro-large bloc viewpoints, respectively, offering insight into the ideological and technical divisions that characterized the debate.
Small Bitcoin Blockers Vs. Big blockers
Buterin described the small blocker perspective primarily through ideas from Bier’s book. This faction, keen to maintain the decentralized and user-accessible nature of Bitcoin, opposed a large increase in block size. They were concerned that larger blocks would require greater hardware requirements for node operators, potentially centralizing the network for those who could afford such setups.
A key quote highlighted by Buterin sums up this concern: “[If the block size were much bigger], 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 being deeply involved in Bitcoin’s governance model.
They preferred infrequent, consensual changes to avoid the risks of centralized control and manipulation by a limited number of stakeholders. The 2017 New York Accord, which sought to resolve the block size dispute through compromise between major exchanges, miners and other stakeholders, has been cited as anathema to governance ideals small blockers, which favored control of the general user base over a company. consortium.
Conversely, the narrative of the big blockers, as detailed in the work of Ver and Patterson, paints a portrait of a group committed to the utility of Bitcoin as a “digital currency.” This group lamented the move toward viewing Bitcoin solely as a “store of value” or “digital gold,” which they said betrayed the original intent outlined in Satoshi NakamotoThe white paper.
Buterin relayed their arguments, emphasizing that large blocks were essential to keeping transaction fees low, thereby driving greater adoption and utility of Bitcoin for everyday transactions. Big blockers have also criticized layer 2 solutions like Lightning Networkwhich have been advocated by small blockers as alternative methods to manage transaction loads without increasing block sizes.
Ver and Patterson argued that such solutions were complex, required users to maintain perpetual online connections, and ultimately would not be scalable enough to meet global demand without also increasing the size of the BTC block.
In reflecting on his own position, Buterin revealed a nuanced position. Initially sympathetic to the big blockers due to practical concerns about high fees undermining Bitcoin’s utility, over time he expressed frustration with the extremes of both camps. He noticed :
In my opinion, the big blockers were right on the central question that the blocks needed to be bigger and that this was best achieved with a simple, clean hard fork like Satoshi described, but the small blockers have made far fewer embarrassing technical missteps and were proven right. fewer positions that led to absurd results if you tried to take them to their logical conclusion.
Buterin’s Lessons for Ethereum
Buterin advocates a balanced approach, emphasizing “medium predictability” of transaction costs and node operational requirements. He cited as an example Ethereum’s strategies, in which incremental increases in block capacity were coupled with fee adjustments to effectively manage growth and scalability.
Buterin lamented the omission of significant technological advances like ZK-SNARK in the speech, highlighting their potential to solve scalability and privacy issues without requiring divisive compromises. He suggested that the adoption of new technologies could defuse political tensions by proposing solutions that match the interests of different stakeholder groups. Buterin writes:
One incredibly glaring omission in both books stood out to me more than anything else: the word “ZK-SNARK” appeared exactly zero times in either book. There’s no real 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 bit by Gregory Maxwell in 2013, but they don’t seem to be factored into discussions about the future roadmap at all. Bitcoin.
Buterin’s blog post serves not only as a reflection on a controversial chapter in Bitcoin’s history, but also as a cautionary tale for Ethereum and other blockchain communities. He highlighted the importance of inclusive governance and technological innovation to avoid “one-sided skills traps,” in which a lack of diverse skills and perspectives can stifle growth and lead to deep-rooted conflicts.
“I care about examining the successes and failures of Bitcoin, not because I want to bring down Bitcoin as a means to raise Ethereum; […] I care about analyzing these issues because Ethereum and other digital (and even physical) communities I care about have a lot to learn from understanding what happened, what went well, and what could have done better,” concluded Buterin.
At press time, BTC was trading at $68,498.
Featured image from CNBC, chart from TradingView.com