On May 31, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin wrote, “The Bitcoin block size dispute is a one-way capability trap. This seems to be a fundamental problem for anyone trying to build a democratic or diverse political entity, project, or community. Smart people want to work with other smart people. If two different groups are roughly evenly matched, people will tend to choose the group that is more in line with their values, and this balance is stable. However, if development tilts too much in one direction, it will flip into another state of equilibrium, and it seems difficult to flip it back. To some extent, the one-sided capability trap can be alleviated by the opposite side simply realizing the existence of the problem and consciously cultivating capabilities. Usually, an opposition movement does not even get to this point. But sometimes, simply recognizing the problem is not enough. We will benefit a lot from having a more sound and deeper way to prevent and get rid of the one-sided capability trap.
A key question facing Bitcoin’s future is whether it can become a technologically advanced ecosystem. The development of Inscription and later BitVM has brought new possibilities for the second layer, improving upon what can be achieved with the Lightning Network. Hopefully, Udi Wertheimer’s theory is correct that the approval of the Ethereum ETF marks the end of Saylorism and a renewed awareness that Bitcoin needs to improve technologically.
The reason I care about examining Bitcoin’s successes and failures is not because I want to elevate Ethereum by disparaging Bitcoin; in fact, as someone who loves trying to understand social and political issues, I find that one of the things about Bitcoin is that it’s socially complex enough to spark internal debates and divisions that are rich and fascinating enough to fill two entire books. Rather, I care about analyzing these issues because Ethereum and other digital (and even physical) communities that I care about have a lot to learn from understanding what happened, what went well, and what could be done better.”
