I’ve been interested in bitcoin for some time, 1 and witnessed the BTC vs. BCH blocksize war from 2015–2017 from the sidelines. Last year I read Roger Ver and Steve Patterson’s Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC (2024) (foreword by my buddy Jeffrey Tucker, whose Atlanta Crypto-Currency Conference I spoke at in 2013). 2 I found it to be well-written and organized. I was not persuaded by their case, however. Seemed like spin, whining, typical activism to me. If bitcoin can ever work, it has to work on its own, not because of flogging by activists to “use” it or “adopt” it. (Same thing with libertarianism.) 3
I was aware of another book on this topic, Jonathan Bier’s The Blocksize War: The battle over who controls Bitcoin’s protocol rules (2021), but I’ve never read it. In a Tweet, Miguel Vidal commented that “Roger Ver is deeply dishonest: he’s who tried to hijack Bitcoin. He attacked (bcash) and he failed (he had no interest in the underlying debate)” and that Jonathan Bier‘s “essay is quite well documented, fair, engaging and riveting. Highly recommend.” I noticed he had written the Prólogo (prologue, or foreword) 4 to the Spanish translation and he sent me a link to an a automatic English translation of his Foreword, which I append below.
The Blocksize War (Extended Prologue)
Approximate reading time: 7 minutes, 46 seconds
The context
The events narrated in this work describe a decisive period in the still-short history of Bitcoin. Under the guise of a circumstantial and highly technical argument over the maximum size of blocks storing transactions, much deeper issues about Bitcoin’s governance, its political control, and, ultimately, its future were passionately disputed for two long years (2015-2017). It is no exaggeration to say that the outcome of that dispute defined the way we perceive Bitcoin today. Its uniqueness compared to any of the thousands of replicas that emerged in those years—all of them worthless but promising to surpass it—and also compared to the “smoke” of blockchain, was defined and consolidated then. But not only was the way it was perceived defined, the most important thing is that it maintained its integrity and its decentralized, command-free essence (“rules without rulers”) thanks to the titanic work carried out by true visionaries—the so-called small blockers—who remained steadfast.
Most of the attributes that make Bitcoin unique, and which we take for granted today, were already in play back then. It would take years to fully understand and consolidate them. Bitcoin is always the same, but the perception of it has evolved. We’ve been learning to understand it—and we continue to do so. In 2015, uncertainty still reigned on many issues: did we want Bitcoin to be a startup constantly offering new features that would increase its appeal and price? Did we want it to be ubiquitous in stores and compete with Visa in terms of transaction volume? Was blockchain the universal solution to any non-monetary problem? Should the world be tokenized ? Were the concentration of mining pools and a possible 51% attack on miners a real threat? The hubbub was considerable, with many people spreading FUD and wanting to quickly profit; it was the ideal breeding ground for charlatans, opportunists, and scammers. And they apparently had a clear path: there were no “maximalists” yet—their embryo was, in fact, the small blockers—to defend Bitcoin’s uniqueness. Seen in perspective, the period of conflict, which seemed to paralyze everything, allowed us to become aware of what made Bitcoin so unique, which was not its code (which could be cloned in a second), nor its functionalities (it wasn’t a startup), nor even its purchase price, but its decentralized and immutable nature (not only in its records, but in its rules, which couldn’t be manipulated or corrupted). The dispute also made it possible to empirically verify essential aspects that until then had been rather theoretical, such as the essential role of full nodes—something far from obvious until then—or the control that miners had over the protocol—a misperception that was taken for granted. And it even made it easier for the impatient to break away and experiment with “alternatives,” allowing Bitcoin to follow its own path.
It would be a mistake to think that, since these events occurred more than five years ago—an eternity in the Bitcoin space—their interest is merely historical or anecdotal. That it’s water under the bridge. On the contrary, it’s difficult to understand where the “maximalist” ( Bitcoin-only ) postulates come from without knowing what was decided in those years (2015-2017). It’s also a very entertaining story, due to the twists and turns the situation took, the extraordinary characters involved, how passionate it was for everyone, and the fact that it was deployed in physical locations around the world. And, of course, its happy ending for those of us who defended a Bitcoin that was whole and under user control.
The development
The big blockers insisted on believing the war was between Bitcoin Core and the miners. Taking a top-down view, they believed Bitcoin was controlled by the Bitcoin Core developers, who acted as “generals” of the small blocker troops. That assumption was one of their biggest mistakes: they never wanted to admit, as it went against their narrative, that no one controls Bitcoin. Not even the small blockers. I remember vicious, conspiracy-fueled campaigns against the Core developers and anyone who supported them. The amazing thing is that the small blockers defeated not only that narrative, but also attempt after attempt to capture Bitcoin, no matter who took over (first Gavin and Hearn, then Roger Ver and CSW, then Bitmain and the Chinese miners, and finally a consortium of millionaires, opportunists, and large corporations…).
From the start, the big blockers had everything in their favor: the main influencers , and the FUD (the supposed urgency to do a hard fork) was working. So, what are the reasons why the small blockers, against all odds and against everything, won this battle so overwhelmingly?
The first reason was their superior understanding of Bitcoin. The big blockers were ignorant not only of how its protocol worked, but also of much more basic aspects, such as the role of full nodes or the harmful effects of a hostile hard fork. The small blockers knew that users (the economically active nodes) were the only ones who verified and enforced the rules and were therefore the ones who ultimately controlled Bitcoin, by whether or not they upgraded their nodes. The power not only to validate the rules but also to change them resided with the nodes—the users, ultimately—something the big blockers believed was mere propaganda and bitterly discovered was true. It seems obvious now, but it was not at all so back then, due to the legacy of the early years, where miners and nodes were one and the same. It was actually somewhat counterintuitive because in 2015, almost everyone thought that power lay with the miners, developers, or even the big exchanges, not with the humble random user with a UASF cap and a Raspberry Pi, whom no one counted on and certainly no one asked for their opinion. This ignorance (or contempt) on the part of the big blockers proved fatal for them.
The second reason for the big blockers’ defeat was clumsiness, impatience, and gross tactical errors (a combination of overconfidence, unreliable leaders, and a lack of interest in understanding how Bitcoin actually worked). The small blockers, however, had the advantage of infinite patience, thanks to their low time preference.
And the third reason (and no less important) was Bitcoin’s inherent resilience to hostile changes to the protocol’s rules (hard fork after hard fork failed). It should also be added that defending the power of users was, in the long run, more attractive (and consistent with Bitcoin’s philosophy) than demanding blind trust, as the big blockers demanded, in certain individuals and companies driven by a short-term, opportunistic, and opaque vision.
Bitcoin under user control
The resolution of the conflict was not only an outright defeat for the big blockers but, in a way, a lesson in libertarian governance: having failed in their attack, the big blockers decided to secede and test their thesis with bcash. They certainly could have done so from the very beginning, saving us two long years of conflict, but their hidden agenda wasn’t to secede, but to take control of Bitcoin. Only when, after repeated attempts, they saw that it was impossible to capture Bitcoin did they give up, hoping that their fork (bcash) would eventually replace Bitcoin on the market. Each and every one of their hypotheses failed despite having a lot of initial traction, 90% of the mining power, and millions of dollars backing them. Not only the big blockers, but we all learned empirically that any change without user input—that is, any hostile fork (regardless of the method or excuse)—will result in a shitcoin. Without intending to, they managed to make Bitcoin more resilient and its users much more mature and aware of its nature.
Today, no one defends large blocks in Bitcoin. Nor is anyone obsessed with competing in the number of transactions per second, or with implementing this or that feature of the latest shitcoin. And we owe this to the small blockers, who tirelessly opposed opportunistic changes to the protocol and, above all, offered consistent scaling alternatives that respected the integrity of Bitcoin (such as SegWit). The big blocker lobby dissolved and fragmented into worthless forks and shitcoins: it was empirically proven that their proposals, had they been successful, would have led to the split of Bitcoin.
But the small blockers not only achieved a victory regarding the block size limit, which we could even say was the least of it, but above all regarding how to change the protocol’s rules. Bitcoin had no leader or anyone behind it controlling it, so the big blockers were fighting against shadows: they wanted to destroy—or replace—a figure that didn’t exist. They believed their enemy was Core or Blockstream, but they were wrong. They ended up exhausted from fighting against shadows. The discovery that it was the users who were in control was the greatest lesson of the block size war and what definitively demonstrated that Bitcoin was different from everything else. And that financial sovereignty was something effective, not a mere slogan.
The future
The book’s message about the battle waged—fortunately, bloodlessly—remains very important for current Bitcoiners: it taught us to be extremely cautious with change. Bitcoin can, of course, improve, and in fact is constantly improving; it’s free and open source software (FBS), but its essential foundations—which require incompatible changes—tend to be immutable. It also demonstrated that Bitcoin is immune to backroom deals, leaders, or top-down impositions. It also demonstrated that miners only apply the rules of the protocol; they don’t verify them, much less alter or control them. It also demonstrated that Bitcoin isn’t a startup, nor does it intend to replace the Visa network or PayPal in the hearts of merchants. It is much more than that; it is nothing less than the most powerful tool for personal economic freedom ever invented. And there’s no rush, a lesson from small blockers that Gregory Maxwell summed up better than anyone:
We must be patient. Bitcoin is a system that should last forever and empower humanity for a long time; ten years from now, a couple of years of disputes will seem like nothing. However, the reputation we earn for our stability and integrity, for being a monetary system people can count on, will mean everything.
And yes, that battle was won, but nothing guarantees that other attacks won’t be attempted in the future under one pretext or another, and that this time it will be the financial or state establishment, with its massive power, that tries to capture—or tame—Bitcoin. The author reminds us that the freedom and individual sovereignty of ordinary citizens are never guaranteed, and we must always be vigilant in defending them.
About the author
Among the many virtues of this work is that the author, Jonathan Bier, was not a mere after-the-fact observer, but actually witnessed some of the events described and met in person some of the key players in the different phases of the battle, which seemed endless, exhausting, and lasted several years. Anyone who followed the events during that period knows how difficult it was to find one’s bearings, let alone be present at key conferences. While he doesn’t hide his biases, the author strives to be even-handed and understand the reasons for each side, the multiple causes and motivations for each perspective, and even the human weaknesses in the heat of battle—such as pride, opportunism, and arrogance—something he achieves, making the work much more interesting and resilient over time.
Bier demonstrates not only firsthand knowledge of the facts but also a deep understanding of the Bitcoin protocol, its history, its personalities, and even its economic aspects. This allows him to provide an overview that very few people could offer, making this work an exceptional read for anyone interested in Bitcoin. And not just for those who missed the events, but even for those of us who experienced them more closely, as it offers a coherent, orderly, and reasoned account. Bier reconstructs an extremely complex puzzle in an exhaustive yet very accessible way, which has allowed me not only to recall events I experienced in fragments, but also to establish a logical sequence and fill in numerous gaps and even reflect on some (minor) errors. In most cases, I am relieved to find that I was able to orient myself relatively well, I understood what was at stake, I marked UASF with my full node, and, aside from some haste, I have nothing to regret. Which is no small feat, as it was easy to make mistakes, as the propaganda from the big blocker lobby—those who advocate increasing the maximum block size even at the cost of forking it—was overwhelming, aggressive, and difficult to circumvent.
The Spanish edition
The publication of this unique work in Spanish is great news. It’s a particularly valuable resource for Spanish-speaking readers because, when this battle took place, the Hispanic Bitcoin community was still small and nowhere near as vibrant as it is now, so the events went relatively unnoticed in these parts. There was, however, some big-blocker buzz—followed by massive blockchain hype and shitcoin fever—until more and more Bitcoiners emerged who understood Bitcoin’s uniqueness. This book allows readers to trace a reliable genealogy of this. Enjoy a pivotal episode in this journey toward financial freedom that is just beginning.
Miguel Vidal
Senior systems architect and technology entrepreneur with over 20 years of experience in UNIX and Unix-like operating systems, primarily OpenBSD, Solaris, and Linux, and FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software)-related technologies. Co-founder of FLOSSystems
I’ve been involved in the free software community since 1998. Live and let live. Twitter
- Am I a Bitcoin Maximalist?; various podcast interviews and posts. [↩]
- KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender (Crypto-Currency Conference, Atlanta, 2013). [↩]
- Activism, Achieving a Free Society, and Writing for the Remnant. [↩]
- Pat McNees, “What is the difference between a preface, a foreword, and an introduction?” [↩]
