History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally.

The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses.

Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low.

This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction.

One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable.

These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest.

This post is inspired by the newest video from @Bitcoin Mechanic
Best regards, I appreciate your content.

As mining competition intensifies, efficiency increasingly depends on access to cheap capital rather than technology. In a world of centralized finance, this pushes miners toward centralized funding sources that come with conditions and influence. The result is a mining sector far more centralized than many are willing to admit.

As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit.

Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability.

The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future.

https://fountain.fm/episode/MPf5aJHxUZk34AHQClB4

One point many people overlook is that before v30, only public, identifiable operators could push big OP_RETURN data into blocks, which created a clear line of accountability. Today it’s a network-wide behavior: every node relays it, responsibility becomes diffuse and the impact on decentralization is now embedded in Bitcoin’s core protocol.

It is correct that before Core v30, miners could also include large OP_RETURN transactions in blocks, but that choice was made by clearly identifiable actors. Miners are public-facing companies. Deliberately mining large OP_RETURN data could lead to reputational damage, loss of hashrate, and in extreme cases legal consequences. That acted as a natural social and economic brake.

With the opening of OP_RETURN, responsibility shifts from individual miners to the network as a whole. Every node now relays these transactions, regardless of their content. This removes clear attribution to a responsible actor. What used to be a conscious choice by a few miners becomes a structural property of the protocol.

Large OP_RETURN data and inscriptions increase storage, bandwidth, and computational requirements. That raises the cost of running a node. Over time, fewer people can afford to operate their own nodes, which weakens decentralization and concentrates influence among large operators.

In the long run, this can alter Bitcoin’s level of decentralization and change the balance of power within the network.