The receipts exist
History is often written by the victors; however, the internet is a graveyard of deleted posts and cached contradictions that tell a different story. For years, the narrative surrounding the Bitcoin scaling wars has been simplified into a moral play. On one side, you have the virtuous small-block defenders of decentralization. On the other hand, the supposed corporate heretics of big blocks. This version of history relies on a collective amnesia that no longer holds water.
The record is public, the receipts are archived, and the truth is far more nuanced than the “small blocks forever” dogma suggests.
We are told that the current state of BTC, with its high fees and restricted throughput, was always the intended design. We are told that anyone who suggested increasing the block size was a radical trying to destroy the network. This is a lie of omission, at the very least.
The public record shows that the very architects of the small-block movement once openly discussed, proposed, and supported gradual increases to the block size limit. They were not always the rigid gatekeepers we see today; they were once pragmatic engineers who acknowledged that the system would eventually need to grow.
This article is not a matter of memory or emotional, yellow journalism; it is an investigation into a documented record of shifting stances based on who is writing checks. We will look at a timeline of statements that prove the “small blocks forever” ideology was a later development, a hardening of rhetoric that coincided with specific funding interests and cultural shifts. We were dismissed as conspiracy theorists for pointing this out from 2015 forward. Now, with the resurfacing of the Epstein files and the funding orbits around Blockstream and MIT DCI and early development, it is time for a look at the facts with grown-up seriousness. The era of narrative management is over.
What they said then
In the early years of the scaling debate, the conversation was about “when” and “how,” not “if.” Prominent voices who are now synonymous with the small-block status quo were on the record supporting growth.
Adam Back, the CEO of Blockstream, was once quite explicit about a growth path. In August 2015, he responded to a proposal with a very clear roadmap. He stated, “Strongly agree. My suggestion 2 MB now, then 4 MB in 2 years and 8 MB in 4 years then re-assess.” This proposal, preserved on X, shows a man who believed in a phased, predictable increase in capacity.
This was not the rhetoric of a man who believed 1 MB was a sacred limit; it was the rhetoric of someone who understood that bitcoin needed to scale.
Pieter Wuille, one of the most respected developers in the BTC space, also sought a technical solution for growth. In July 2015, he authored the BIP 103 specification, which proposed a hard-fork to replace the fixed limit with a schedule of incremental increases. His plan involved steps “one every ~97 days… increasing the maximum block size by 4.4%,” which would result in “17.7% growth per year.” Wuille’s proposal was a long-term commitment to scaling that would have seen block sizes grow significantly over decades.
Even Greg Maxwell, the primary antagonist to the big-block movement, left the door open for capacity increases. In a December 2015 mailing list post titled “Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system”, Maxwell wrote that certain technical improvements would “set a stage for some capacity increases.” He explicitly mentioned that Segregated Witness would offer “a 2× capacity increase… and additional capacity beyond it.” His stance was conditional, but it was not an absolute refusal to grow.
Andreas Antonopoulos, who would later become a primary evangelist for the BTC “store of value” narrative, was also an early advocate for action. During the 2015 debates, he posted that “Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon.” This quote, preserved in his original tweet, shows a sense of urgency that vanished from his later rhetoric.
He further emphasized that “the block size debate is healthy and necessary,”
These receipts prove that the “small blocks forever” ideology was not the founding consensus. It was a pivot.
Back to the top ↑
What they said later
As the years progressed, the rhetoric shifted from “how do we scale?” to “scaling is a threat.” The flexibility seen in 2015 hardened into a dogmatic defense of the 1 MB (and later the weight-based 4 MB) limit.
By 2017, Luke Dashjr was proposing a path that was the exact opposite of the earlier growth proposals. In apublic mailing list reply, Dashjr suggested that dropping the block-size limit “to 300 k” could be “good for the network.” He argued that the rise of the Lightning Network would make such small blocks natural. This was not just a rejection of growth; it was a call for contraction.
Jimmy Song also began to frame the desire for larger blocks as a moral and economic failing. In his November 2017 article, “Segwit2x Post Mortem: Divorce of Crypto‑Austrians and Crypto‑Keynesians”, Song labeled proponents of larger blocks as “Crypto-Keynesians.” He argued that the block-size limit was a “speed limit on money” that was necessary to preserve security and the store-of-value property. The pragmatic engineering debate had been replaced by an ideological purity test.
Back to the top ↑
Why this matters
The shift from “we can raise later” to “small forever” was not a technical evolution; it was a change in the fundamental incentives of the Bitcoin system. When the expectation was that the block size would increase as needed, the focus was on Bitcoin as a system for global payments and utility. When the narrative shifted to small blocks, the focus moved toward making BTC a speculative asset that required off-chain intermediaries for actual use.
This “small forever” stance created a system where high fees are a feature, not a bug. It forces users into second-layer solutions like the Lightning Network, which, in effect, reintroduces the very intermediaries bitcoin was designed to bypass. This benefits companies that build and manage those second layers. It creates a gatekept ecosystem where only the wealthy can afford to transact on the base layer, while the rest of the world is relegated to custodial or complex off-chain systems.
The second-order effect was the stifling of innovation. By keeping blocks small, the BTC culture functionally killed the ability for Bitcoin to be used as a data ledger or a platform for complex smart contracts. They traded utility for a “digital gold” narrative that appeals to old money and big tech because it is non-disruptive. A Bitcoin that can process millions of transactions per second is a threat to the global financial status quo; a Bitcoin that can only handle seven is a curiosity that can be easily ignored or co-opted.
Back to the top ↑
The smear cycle
During this transition, anyone who continued to advocate for the original scaling mandate was subjected to a coordinated smear campaign. We were not met with technical counterarguments; we were met with character assassination. Advocates for scaling were dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “scammers,” or “corporate puppets.”
The incentive for this was clear: by marginalizing the voices calling for growth, the narrative managers could maintain their control over the development of BTC. The rhetoric of “decentralization” was used as a shield to justify a highly centralized control over the protocol’s direction. In effect, the fear of “centralization” via larger blocks was used to create a reality of centralization via a small group of developers and their funders.
The discourse was poisoned. You could not discuss the merits of BIP 103 or Adam Back’s 2/4/8 proposal without being accused of wanting to “attack” bitcoin. This culture of hostility ensured that only the “small blocks forever” ideology could survive in the BTC ecosystem. It was a functional purge of dissent.
Back to the top ↑
The Epstein angle, carefully
This brings us to the uncomfortable intersection of funding and narrative. For years, those of us who questioned the funding behind the small-block movement were mocked. However, recent document releases have shed new light on the circles surrounding the MIT Media Lab, the Digital Currency Initiative (DCI), and Blockstream, which played a central role in BTC development during the scaling wars.
We know that Jeffrey Epstein had an interest in influencing scientific narratives, and his ties to Joi Ito and the MIT Media Lab, as well as Austin Hill and Blockstream, are now well-documented. What remains an area for serious investigation is how that influence, and the broader funding from figures like Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt, and Reid Hoffman, shaped the direction of Bitcoin scaling.
We are not asserting a direct causal link between Epstein and the 1 MB limit as an established fact. We are, however, drawing a careful inference that the funding sources for the institutions that controlled the BTC narrative deserve intense scrutiny. When “old money” and big tech are the primary backers of the developers who insist on keeping the system non-disruptive, we must ask why.
As we look at the evidence, we must ask these investigative questions:
- What did specific developers or organizations do to gain favor within the MIT DCI funding orbit?
- Why was controlling developer influence discussed in the context of these high-level funding circles?
- Why did the MIT DCI become the primary “neutral” ground for BTC development during the height of the scaling wars?
- What else is still missing from the record regarding funding ties or private communications that might explain the sudden shift in rhetoric from 2015 to 2017?
The public deserves to know if the “small blocks forever” stance was a technical necessity or a paid-for narrative, and I’d like to know what Adam Back did to make Jeffrey Epstein “like him.”
Back to the top ↑
What BSV proves by existence
The existence of BSV is the ultimate proof that the “technical” objections to scaling were unfounded. BSV is the continuation of the original scaling mandate. It has been proven that Bitcoin can handle large blocks, low fees, and massive throughput without the network collapsing.
BSV functions as a data ledger, not just a speculative chip. It allows for the kind of utility that was envisioned by the early pioneers of the system. While BTC has become a stagnant pool of high fees and limited use cases, BSV has shown that you can have a scalable, secure system that remains true to the whitepaper.
The small blockers argued that big blocks would lead to centralization and network failure. BSV exists as a living refutation of those claims.
It proves that the limitations placed on BTC were choices, not requirements. It proves that Bitcoin was always meant to be a global system for payments and data, not a restricted club for the few.
Back to the top ↑
No more amnesia
We can no longer allow narrative managers to rewrite the history of Bitcoin. The receipts exist. The shifts in stance are documented. The funding ties are emerging. It is time for the public to demand accountability and stop accepting the gaslighting that has defined the last decade of this industry.
Reinvestigate the primary sources. Quote the developers back to themselves. Demand to know why a roadmap of 2/4/8 MB was “safe” in 2015 but “dangerous” in 2017. We must stop letting the winners of the narrative war dictate our understanding of the past.
This is not about tribalism or a desire for a “win” in a social media argument. This is about the integrity of the historical record and the future of a technology that was meant to change the world. Demand the truth. Demand transparency. Demand that the people who managed this narrative answer for their contradictions. It is our civic duty to ensure that the truth about Bitcoin’s history is not buried by those who profit from its restriction.
The record is public; now we must act like grown-ups and read it.
Back to the top ↑
Watch: Inside the London Blockchain Conference with Kurt Wuckert Jr.
Source: https://coingeek.com/hijacking-bitcoin-a-deeper-dive/