The ordi incident is by no means accidental. On the one hand, it shows that there are huge differences between the Bitcoin faction capital and developers and miners. Although the developers finally compromised in this incident, the war in the field has actually been ignited long ago.
From 2014 to 2017, the Bitcoin community experienced a long-lasting debate on blocks of varying sizes, with domestic miners, exchanges, and Bitcoin fundamentalists engaged in a life-and-death struggle. In the end, the big block camp collapsed, splitting into BCH and BSV. Domestic miners were therefore labeled "mining tyrants."
The leaders of the small block faction were Adam Back and Greg Maxwell, who later founded Blockstream, focusing on the development of the Bitcoin sidechain Liquid Network.
Therefore, there has always been a conspiracy theory in the community that Blockstream, in order to promote its own side chain, is willing to cause a split in the Bitcoin network, support small blocks, and oppose Bitcoin expansion in order to promote the development of the Liquid Network.
Despite these conspiracy theories, over the years, small blockers appear to have been more prescient than large block forks.
A new round of big block movement
In 2023, driven by domestic retail investors and exchanges, a new round of "big blockism" movement was launched with inscriptions as the medium. The core of the inscription issue is still the expansion of Bitcoin, and in essence it is still a debate between big blocks and small blocks.
Inscriptions are of course driven by market demand, but Bitcoin is a small-capacity container after all. Inscriptions are like playing a tornado in a cup. Forcing it in will inevitably squeeze normal transactions. I used to be a big blocker, believing that technology should meet the needs of the broadest masses, but later I completely reconciled.
Bitcoin is a religion and a store of value that requires extreme conservatism and remains unchanged for a hundred years; Ethereum, on the other hand, is a form of progressivism that requires constant updates and rapid iterations.
We don’t need to choose between the two, we can choose what we like. People who like excitement and innovation can go to Ethereum or side chains to play, but is it not good to let Bitcoin be a quiet value storage? Large blocks and small blocks involve the positioning and expansion of Bitcoin. It is not only a debate on the technical route, but also a debate on the cognition of "what is Bitcoin".
If Bitcoin chooses a large-scale technological expansion to meet the needs of all users, it must be infinitely expanded, not just assets like inscriptions. In 2013-2015, many projects tried to implement smart contract functions directly on Bitcoin.
In this way, Bitcoin’s positioning has become a general-purpose smart contract platform and asset platform. The reality is that even with a flexible architecture like Ethereum, it is difficult to achieve such expansion. It is technically impossible to achieve without giving up other core goals of Bitcoin.
The promotion of big blockism is a manifestation of recklessness and speculation. Treating the symptoms without addressing the root cause is not enough to consolidate the underlying structure of Bitcoin. As an asset platform, Bitcoin can be less flexible than Ethereum. Similarly, as a valuable asset, you cannot be too aggressive.
Therefore, it is not that Bitcoin does not have dreams of the stars and the sea, but that in the past decade of attempts, it has found its greatest common divisor in technology and narrative, and also "solved" the expansion problem by the way.
How does Bitcoin solve the scalability problem?
The solution for Bitcoin is to adjust the narrative and shape it into "digital gold" and non-sovereign currency. Under this narrative, expansion becomes a false proposition, leaving the expansion problem to other projects such as Ethereum.
Under the narrative of "digital gold", the annual physical turnover of physical gold accounts for less than 1% of inventory. As a store of value, Bitcoin does not require high-frequency transactions on the main chain, so tps and expansion are not a problem at all.
In fact, Ethereum’s approach to solving the scaling problem is similar: transforming the main network into a settlement network (expensive, slow, and stable), and then letting Layer 2 truly solve the scaling and tps problems.
But the problem also arises. Bitcoin does not have high TPS and on-chain transactions, so where does the high fee come from? Without high fees, how can network security be guaranteed after Bitcoin is mined in 2140? This core issue is the most fundamental logical problem for big blockists to strongly promote unlimited expansion.
To be honest, this is indeed a problem for Bitcoin, and there is no solution yet. However, considering that Bitcoin may reach a market value of 100 trillion US dollars in the next few decades, I believe this will force all parties to form a new token model and consensus to solve the "handling fee" problem.
Although small blockists cannot answer the core question of "after the block reward ends, the low transaction fees of low-capacity Bitcoin cannot maintain network security", the expansion advocacy of big blockists is obviously a direct destruction of the core value of Bitcoin.
Unlimited expansion means constant change and the introduction of technical risks, which may eventually lead to hugeness, inefficiency, node concentration, and extremely high technical risks, which are all fatal blows to Bitcoin's core positioning as digital gold, security and permanent value storage.
How to choose between small blocks and large blocks?
Weighing the small blocks and the large blocks, we should take the lighter of the two. I think small blockism is more logically self-consistent, leaving the "handling fee" issue to the holders of coins in the next few decades; while the updated expansion promoted by large blockism has an immediate negative impact.
As a coin holder, the liveliness of the Bitcoin ecosystem is of course good, but Bitcoin cannot meet the needs of everyone; the balance between technology and desire may be an issue that coin holders, investors, miners, exchanges, etc. need to consider.
Without a stable, unchanging technological foundation, Bitcoin cannot become the ultimate store of value, and high transaction fees are only a temporary illusion.
The inscription issue is just a small episode in the dispute between the big block and the small block route. Perhaps there are technical alternatives that can find the greatest common divisor between the two camps. Maybe we should think twice before we act. Another fork may only make everything more confusing.
Later, I will bring you analysis of leading projects in other tracks. If you are interested, you can click to follow. I will also organize some cutting-edge consulting and project reviews from time to time. Welcome all like-minded people in the cryptocurrency circle to explore together.
