The Bitcoin block size war in the 2010s was a critical struggle to shape the future of Bitcoin. At the heart of this war was a fundamental disagreement regarding Bitcoin’s scalability and use case. The topic of discussion was whether Bitcoin should increase its block size from 1 MB to increase the number of transactions and lower fees, or maintain smaller blocks to make it easier for more users to run nodes and preserve centralization.

Jonathan Bier’s “The Block Size War” delves into the perspective of small block advocates. The book argues that larger blocks will make running nodes extremely expensive and technically difficult for individuals, which will inevitably threaten the centralization of the Bitcoin network. Small-block advocates believe that changes to the Bitcoin protocol, especially those that undergo difficult forks, should be rare and require broad consensus among users.

In contrast, Roger Ver and Steve Patterson’s “Bitcoin Usurpation” takes on the views of defenders of the big blocs. The authors consider Bitcoin not only as digital gold, but also as a digital cash that can be used globally. Therefore, they believe that low transaction fees are necessary for Bitcoin to become widespread as a payment system. Large block advocates supported reducing transaction fees by increasing block size and realizing the original vision of Bitcoin. As stated in Satsohi Nakamoto’s whitepaper, they argued that Bitcoin’s main purpose was to become a global payment system.

Buterin points out an interesting point in this discussion. The concept he calls “one-sided competence trap” describes the situation where one party monopolizes technical competence and pushes a narrow agenda, while the other party is right on the fundamental issue but fails to develop the competence to realize its vision. According to Buterin, this also showed itself in the block size war. Small block defenders were superior in terms of technical knowledge and experience and were in control of the network. Big bloc advocates, on the other hand, had difficulty in implementing their ideas effectively and producing alternative solutions.

Buterin emphasizes that the solution to such political and technical impasses lies in new technologies that can satisfy both sides. He notes that Ethereum’s adoption of technologies such as ZK-SNARKs and BLS aggregation is an example of how innovative solutions can simultaneously increase scalability and decentralization. Buterin hopes Bitcoin will similarly take a more technology-focused approach. In this context, the development of new layer-2 solutions such as Inscriptions and BitVM may lead Bitcoin to a more scalable and centralized structure in the future.

In conclusion, Vitalik Buterin’s analysis highlights the fundamental struggles of the cryptocurrency world through Bitcoin’s block size war and the importance of technological developments for the future.