Vitalik Buterin Critiques Bitcoin’s Block Size War

Vitalik Buterin Critiques Bitcoin’s Block Size War


By Jakub Lazurek

31 May 2024 (about 1 month ago)

4 min read


Vitalik Buterin reflects on the Bitcoin block size war, highlighting the need for balanced innovation and decentralization in the crypto community.

Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, recently reflected on the Bitcoin block size wars from 2015 to 2017—a major conflict in the Bitcoin community. This debate focused on whether to increase Bitcoin’s block size limit from 1 MB to handle more transactions, reduce fees, and enhance its utility as a payment system.

Buterin, who experienced the block size war firsthand, initially supported the “big blockers.” This group wanted larger blocks to keep transaction fees low, aiming to maintain Bitcoin’s role as digital cash. They argued that Bitcoin’s original vision was to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Big blockers believed that increasing the block size was necessary to prevent high fees from undermining this use case. They also referenced Satoshi Nakamoto’s writings, which suggested that larger blocks could be managed through simplified payment verification and hard forks.

On the other hand, the “small blockers” emphasized maintaining Bitcoin’s decentralization and security. They argued that larger blocks would make it more difficult and expensive for individuals to run nodes, potentially centralizing control. Small blockers were concerned that frequent changes to the protocol could destabilize Bitcoin. They believed Bitcoin should remain a decentralized store of value, similar to digital gold, rather than focusing on being a payment system.

Buterin’s reflections show a nuanced understanding of both sides. He admitted that while he thought big blockers were right about needing larger blocks to keep fees low, they often lacked the technical expertise to implement their solutions effectively. He criticized them for not agreeing on realistic limits for block size increases and for technical missteps, such as the poorly executed Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited projects, which had security issues and overly complex implementations.

Conversely, Buterin found the small blockers’ approach too conservative. He disagreed with their rigid stance against hard forks and their reliance on soft forks, which he viewed as unnecessarily complex. He also criticized the small blockers for their alleged social media censorship and exclusion of dissenting views, which stifled open debate within the community.

Buterin highlighted a recurring issue in political and organizational conflicts: the “one-sided competence trap,” where one side monopolizes competence but fails to consider broader perspectives. This hampers constructive dialogue and progress. “Smart people want to work with other smart people,” Buterin noted, stressing the importance of balanced and inclusive approaches.

Buterin also criticized the lack of technological foresight in the debates, pointing to the absence of discussions on zero-knowledge proofs (ZK-SNARKs), which could have offered scalable solutions. “The ultimate diffuser of political tension is not compromise, but rather new technology,” he asserted, advocating for continued innovation.

Reflecting on Ethereum’s development, Buterin noted how lessons from Bitcoin’s block size wars informed Ethereum’s emphasis on client diversity and scalable layer 2 solutions. He emphasized learning from past conflicts to build more resilient and diverse digital communities. “Ethereum’s attempt to foster a pluralistic ecosystem is largely an attempt to avoid one-sided competence traps,” he concluded, highlighting the value of inclusive governance and technological advancement.

Buterin’s perspective highlights the broader implications of the block size war for the crypto community. He sees it as a cautionary tale about the dangers of one-sided competence traps, where one faction monopolizes technical expertise but pushes a narrow agenda, while the opposition fails to develop the necessary skills to implement its vision. This dynamic can lead to stagnation and internal conflict.

Ultimately, Buterin believes that resolving such conflicts lies in embracing new technologies that can address the concerns of both sides. He points to advancements in ZK-SNARKs and other scalability solutions as potential ways to reconcile the need for low fees with the need for decentralization. By focusing on technological innovation, Buterin hopes the crypto community can move beyond divisive debates and work towards more inclusive and practical solutions.

Buterin’s reflections on the Bitcoin block size wars emphasize the importance of balancing decentralization, technical competence, and innovation in the evolution of crypto ecosystems. His insights provide an interesting perspective on Bitcoin’s past and the ongoing challenges facing digital currencies.

Go back to All News
Previous article

Biden Vetoes Resolution to Overturn SEC Crypto Guidance

Biden Vetoes Resolution to Overturn SEC Crypto Guidance
Next article

Elon Musk Denies Crypto Talks with Trump

Elon Musk Denies Crypto Talks with Trump