Vitalik Buterin, the influential co-founder of Ethereum, recently revisited the intense Bitcoin block size debate of the 2010s through two significant historical accounts. The debate, known as the Bitcoin block size war, is a fundamental conflict within the Bitcoin community that centred on whether the size of blocks should be increased to accommodate more transactions, thereby reducing fees but increasing the blockchain’s operational demands.
Buterin delved into Jonathan Bier’s “The Blocksize War” and Roger Ver and Steve Patterson’s “Hijacking Bitcoin,” each presenting opposing perspectives of the block size debate. Bier’s narrative supports maintaining smaller blocks to ease running nodes and decentralising the blockchain, aligning with the philosophy of a conservative, user-driven change protocol. In contrast, Ver and Patterson argue from a pro-big-block stance, emphasising Bitcoin’s original vision as digital cash, necessitating larger block sizes to facilitate more transactions at lower costs.
Technical and Philosophical Divides
Bier’s account depicts that the small-block advocates prioritise operational simplicity and broad consensus before implementing major changes like hard forks. They fear that larger blocks could centralise control, making Bitcoin susceptible to manipulation by powerful entities such as miners and large corporations. This group staunchly opposes frequent and substantial modifications to the blockchain’s architecture, which they believe could jeopardise Bitcoin’s unique value as a decentralised currency beyond the reach of central banks and corporate structures.
Conversely, the big-block proponents focus on Bitcoin’s utility as a transactional currency rather than just a store of value. They support significant increases in block size to reduce transaction fees, even if it compromises some decentralisation. Their perspective is that easing transactions is crucial to Bitcoin’s original purpose as outlined by its creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.
Buterin, who initially supported moderate increases in block size, reflects on his positions with the benefit of hindsight. He recounts his experiences during the debate, acknowledging that while the big blockers had valid points about maintaining Bitcoin’s utility for regular transactions, their approach often lacked technical precision and foresight.
