Original author: Mindao (X: @mindaoyang)
Editors note: Recently, Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr posted on the X platform that Mingwen is using the Bitcoin Core vulnerability in the Bitcoin Core client to send spam messages to the blockchain, and stated that this vulnerability will be fixed in Bitcoin Knots V27. His remarks immediately triggered heated discussions in the community, and topics such as developer permissions, Bitcoin block size, and Bitcoin forks also returned to peoples attention. Should Bitcoin adopt the big block route of accelerating technologicalism or should it be a pure store of value? Behind the excitement of the Bitcoin ecosystem, how to balance the tension between technology and desire? Founder of dForceMindao （X：@mindaoyang）I posted an article expressing my views on this matter, and Odaily compiled it as follows:
It is certainly good for the Bitcoin ecosystem to be lively, but Bitcoin cannot meet all the needs of everyone; how to balance the tension between technology and desire may be an issue that currency holders, currency speculators, miners, and exchanges all need to consider.
Familiar recipe, familiar taste.
The war finally started.
From 2014 to 2017, the Bitcoin circle engaged in a war between large and small blocks that lasted for several years. Chinese miners brought exchanges and started a life-and-death struggle with Bitcoin fundamentalists. In the end, the big block was defeated and split into BCH, BSV, Chinese miners have also been labeled as mining tyrants.
The leaders of the small block gang were Adam Back and Greg Maxwell, who later formed Blockstream to engage in the development of the Bitcoin sidechain Liquid Network. Therefore, there has always been a conspiracy theory in the circle. The Blockstream gang did not hesitate to split the Bitcoin network for its own side chain, advocated small blocks, opposed Bitcoin expansion, and brought goods to the Liquid Network.
Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. After so many years, comparing the development of large block forked chains, it is obvious that small blockists are prescient.
In 2023, driven by Chinese retail investors and exchanges, and using inscriptions as a carrier, a new wave of big blockism movement will be launched.
The core of the inscription issue is still the expansion of Bitcoin, and the essence is still the dispute between large and small blocks. Of course, Inscription is driven by market demand, but Bitcoin is a small cup after all, and Inscription is like a tornado playing in the cup. A hard squeeze will inevitably lead to the squeeze of normal transactions.
I used to be a big blockist and believed that technology should meet the needs of the majority of the people, but I completely reconciled later.
Bitcoin is a religion and a store of value that needs to be extremely conservative and unchanged for hundreds of years;
Ethereum is progressivism and needs to be updated and iterated quickly;
We don’t have to choose one or the other. We all have our own preferences. If we like excitement and innovation, we can play in Ethereum or sidechains. Isn’t it good to let Bitcoin serve as a quiet store of value?
Large and small blocks involve the positioning and expansion of Bitcoin. It is not only a dispute over technical routes, but also essentially a battle over the perception of what Bitcoin is.
If Bitcoin adopts the large-block route of accelerating technologicalism and meets all the needs of all users, it must expand without an upper limit, not just for assets such as inscriptions;
In 2013-15, there were many projects trying to implement smart contract functions directly on Bitcoin. In this way, Bitcoins positioning is expanded into a universal smart contract platform and asset platform. The actual situation is that even with such a flexible architecture as Ethereum, it is very difficult to achieve such expansion. It is technically impossible to achieve without giving up other core demands of Bitcoin.
Big blockisms patch-based expansion, one step at a time, is reckless and opportunistic. Treating a headache and treating a sore foot cannot solidify the bottom layer of Bitcoin at all; as an asset platform, Bitcoin can be no more flexible than Ethereum. Similarly, as a value asset, you cannot be more aggressive than Ethereum.
Therefore, it is not that Bitcoin does not have the dream of starry sea, but the attempts in the past ten years have found its greatest common denominator in terms of technology and narrative, and also solved the expansion problem.
How does Bitcoin solve the scaling problem?
Bitcoins solution is to adjust its narrative and become digital gold and a non-sovereign currency. Under this narrative, expansion has become a false proposition. Lets leave the expansion problem to Ethereum to solve.
Under the narrative of digital gold, TPS and expansion itself have become false propositions. The annual physical turnover of physical gold accounts for less than 1% of the inventory. As a store of value, Bitcoin does not require high-frequency transactions on the main chain, so TPS and capacity expansion are not a problem at all.
In fact, Ethereum solves the expansion problem with the same approach, turning the main network into a settlement network (expensive, slow, and stable), allowing L2 to truly solve the expansion and TPS problems.
But the question is, Bitcoin does not have high TPS and on-chain transactions, so where does the high handling fee come from? Without high fees, if Bitcoin is mined out in 2140, how can network security be ensured? This core issue is the most fundamental logical point for big blockists to push for unlimited expansion.
To be honest, this is indeed the fate of Bitcoin. This problem has no solution now; but after all, it will only need to be faced in 2140. If Bitcoin reaches 100 trillion US dollars, I believe it will force everyone to form a new token model and consensus to solve the handling fee problem.
Although small-blockists cannot answer the core question of the end of block rewards and the low transaction fees of low-capacity Bitcoin cannot maintain network security, the expansion proposition of large-blockists is obviously more important to the core value of Bitcoin. A direct and devastating blow; unlimited expansion means constant changes and the introduction of technical risks. In the end, the big blockists still cannot solve the expansion problem of the existing framework, but instead lead to bloat, inefficiency, node concentration, and extremely high technology. Risk, this is a fatal blow to Bitcoin’s core positioning as digital gold, indestructible security, and permanent store of value.
Small blocks and large blocks are two powers that harm each other, whichever is smaller; I think small block doctrine is more logically consistent and leaves the issue of handling fees to currency holders a hundred years from now; while large block doctrine, The negative impact of this short-sightedness on patch-based expansion is immediate.
As a currency holder, it is certainly good for the Bitcoin ecosystem to be lively, but Bitcoin cannot meet all the needs of everyone; how to balance the tension between technology and desire may be a need for currency holders, currency speculators, miners, and exchanges. issues to consider.
Without a stable and unchanging technical base, Bitcoin cannot become the ultimate store of value, and high handling fees are also a short-lived illusion.
The inscription issue is just an episode in the battle between large and small blocks. There may be technical alternatives that can find the greatest common denominator between the two factions. Can we talk about numbers or sit down and talk about numbers? It would be silly to fork again. .
Vitalik is a big blockist and has been tinkering with colored coins (ancient inscriptions?) on Bitcoin for 13 years. In the large and small block debate, we have always stood in the big block camp. But he knew very well the limitations of Bitcoin itself, and his arms could not twist his thighs, so he finally became angry and started working on Ethereum.
You can even think that Ethereum and the new public chains that follow are, in spirit, big block forks of Bitcoin.
The victory of conservatism does not mean the defeat of progressivism.
The world is so big, you can always find a way to reconcile with yourself.
