The Ordi incident is no accident, as it can be seen that the Bitcoin faction capital and the developers and miners are very different, and although the developers finally compromised in this case, it has actually ignited the battle of the realm.
Between 2014 and 2017, the Bitcoin community experienced a multi-year block debate, large and small, between domestic miners and exchanges, as well as Bitcoin fundamentalists. In the end, the big block camp collapsed, and the BCH and BSV were out. As a result, domestic miners have been labeled as "mining tyrants".
The leading figures of the small blockers were Adam Back and Greg Maxwell, who later founded Blockstream to focus on the development of the Bitcoin sidechain, the Liquid Network.
As a result, there has always been a conspiracy theory in the community that Blockstream is willing to trigger the Bitcoin network** in favor of small blocks and oppose Bitcoin scaling in order to promote its own sidechain, in order to promote the development of the Liquid Network.
Despite these conspiracy theories, over the years, small blockists seem to have been more prescient than the development of large block fork chains.
A new round of big block movement
In 2023, under the impetus of domestic ** and exchanges, a new round of "big blockism" movement will be launched with inscriptions as the medium. At the heart of the inscription issue is still the scaling of Bitcoin, which is essentially still a debate between large blocks and small blocks.
The inscription is of course driven by market demand, but Bitcoin is a small-capacity container after all, and the inscription is like playing a tornado in a cup, and the hard plug will inevitably lead to a squeeze on normal transactions. I used to be a big blockist too, believing that technology should meet the needs of the widest possible public, but then I completely reconciled.
Bitcoin is a religion and store of value that needs to be extremely conservative and unchanged for centuriesEthereum, on the other hand, is a progressivism that requires constant updates and rapid iteration.
We don't have to choose between the two and choose what we love. People who like to be buzzy and innovative can head to Ethereum or sidechains to play, but wouldn't it be nice to make Bitcoin a quiet store of value?Large blocks and small blocks involve the positioning and scaling of Bitcoin, which is not only a debate about the technical route, but also a debate about the perception of "what Bitcoin is".
If Bitcoin opts for massive technocratic scaling to meet the needs of all users, it will have to scale unboundedly, not just for assets like inscriptions. In 13-15 years, there have been many projects that have tried to implement smart contract functionality directly on Bitcoin.
In this way, Bitcoin is positioned as 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 scaling. It is technically impossible to achieve without abandoning Bitcoin's other core goals.
The push of large blockism, one step at a time, is a manifestation of aggressiveness and opportunism. Headaches and feet are not able to consolidate the bottom layer of Bitcoin at all. As an asset platform, Bitcoin can not be as flexible as Ethereum, and similarly, as a value asset, you can't be too aggressive.
Therefore, it is not that Bitcoin does not have the dream of a sea of stars, but that in the attempts of the past decade, it has found its greatest common divisor in terms of technology and narrative, and by the way, it has also "solved" the problem of scaling.
How does Bitcoin solve the scaling problem?
Bitcoin's solution is to adjust the narrative and shape it into a "digital**" and non-sovereign currency. Under this narrative, scaling becomes a false proposition, leaving the scaling problem to other projects such as Ethereum to solve.
Under the narrative of "digital **", the physical turnover of physical ** accounts for less than 1% of the inventory every year, and Bitcoin, as a store of value, does not need high-frequency trading on the main chain, so TPS and scaling are not a problem at all.
In fact, Ethereum's approach to solving the scaling problem is the same, transforming the mainnet into a settlement network (expensive, slow, stable), and then letting Layer 2 really solve the scaling and TPS problems.
But the problem also arises, Bitcoin does not have high TPS and on-chain transactions, so what about the high fees from **?Without high fees, how can network security be guaranteed after Bitcoin is mined in 2140?This core problem is the most fundamental logic of the big blockists' strong push for unbounded scaling.
Truth be told, this is indeed a problem for Bitcoin, and there is no solution yet. However, considering that Bitcoin could reach a market cap of $100 trillion in the next few decades, I believe this will force all parties to form a new token model and consensus to solve the "fee" problem.
Although the blockists cannot answer the core question that "after the block reward ends, the low fees of low-volume bitcoin cannot maintain the network security", the scaling proposition of large-block doctrine is obviously a direct destruction of the core value of bitcoin.
Unbounded scaling means constant change and the introduction of technical risks, which can ultimately lead to large, inefficient, centralized nodes, and extremely high technical risks, all of which are fatal blows to Bitcoin's core positioning as a digital, secure, and permanent store of value.
How to choose between small blocks and large blocks?
Small blocks and large blocks, the two are weighed and whichever is lighter. I think small-blockism is logically more self-consistent, leaving the "fee" problem to the holders in the next few decades;The negative impact of the newer scaling driven by the large blockism is immediate.
As a coin holder, the bustle of the Bitcoin ecosystem is of course good, but Bitcoin cannot meet everyone's needs;The balance between technology and desire may be something that holders, investors, miners, exchanges, and more need to consider.
In the absence of a stable, unchanging technical underlying, Bitcoin cannot become the ultimate store of value, and high fees are only a short-lived illusion.
The inscription issue is just a minor episode in the battle over the routes of large blocks and small blocks, and perhaps there are technical alternatives that can find the greatest common divisor between the two camps. Maybe you should think twice, forking again might just make everything more confusing.
In the later stage, we will bring you the analysis of the leading projects of other tracks. If you are interested, you can click to pay attention. I will also sort out some cutting-edge inquiries and project comments from time to time, and welcome all like-minded people in the currency circle to explore together.