News
Vitalik Buterin reflects on Bitcoin’s block size war
Second Vitalik Buterin, the Bitcoin block size war of the 2010s remains a significant event in cryptocurrency history. The conflict, centered on the question of whether or not to increase Bitcoin’s block size, saw two distinct factions: small blockers, who favored a conservative approach, and large blockers, who advocated larger blocks to accommodate more transactions.
The small blocker perspective
Jonathan Bier’s book, “The Blocksize War,” presents the perspective of small blockers. Initially the debate revolved around the question of whether Bitcoin should undergo an a hard fork to increase the block size limit, which would allow more transactions but make it harder to execute and verify the chain.
Bier describes small blockers as those who prioritize the ease of managing a node. They believed that changes to the Bitcoin protocol should be rare and achieved with a high level of consensus. According to them, Bitcoin’s unique value lies in its decentralization and resistance to control by central organizations. They were wary of governance structures that could lead to centralized decision-making, fearing that this would undermine Bitcoin’s core principles.
Small blockers were particularly opposed to large blockers’ attempts to push through changes by gaining support from a small number of influential players, which they saw as an affront to Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos.
The Big Blocker Perspective
On the other hand, Roger Ver and Steve Patterson’s “Bitcoin Hijacking” project supports large blockers. Big proponents of the block argue that Bitcoin was originally intended as digital money, not just a store of value. They cite the writings of Satoshi Nakamoto, who advocate increasing block sizes to facilitate more transactions and reduce fees.
The big blockers argue that the shift towards treating Bitcoin as digital gold was orchestrated by a small group of core developers. They argue that this change has ignored the needs of the broader community and imposed an elitist model of governance. While small blockers have proposed layer 2 solutions like the Lightning Network to maintain Bitcoin’s usability as digital money, large blockers have criticized these solutions as inadequate and overly complex.
Key differences and consensus
Both sides agree on the importance of decentralization but differ in their approach. Small blockers focus on maintaining low-cost node operation and strict protocol conservatism, while large blockers emphasize the affordability and usability of transactions as digital money.
Bier’s narrative acknowledges the sincerity of many big blockers’ complaints, particularly regarding censorship by small block supporters. However, Bier criticizes the big block camp for incompetence, citing poorly implemented software and security vulnerabilities. In contrast, Ver’s book attributes more malicious intent to small blockers, accusing them of benefiting financially from the limitations placed on Bitcoin.
Lessons and future perspectives
Buterin’s reflections reveal his initial alignment with the big blockers, driven by concerns about high fees and the untested nature of layer-2 solutions. He criticizes both sides for their extremes, advocating a balanced approach to managing Bitcoin’s scalability and decentralization.
It highlights the importance of technological innovation over political compromise in resolving such conflicts. Buterin highlights the potential of ZK-SNARK and other advanced cryptographic techniques to improve scalability and privacy, which had been overlooked during the block size wars.
Ultimately, Buterin’s analysis serves as a reminder that the lessons of Bitcoin’s block size war extend beyond the cryptocurrency. They offer valuable insights into governance, decentralization, and the challenges of maintaining a democratic ethos in any digital community.
Image source: Shutterstock
. . .