The post Hijacking Bitcoin: A deeper dive appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com.

Homepage > News > Editorial > Hijacking Bitcoin: A deeper dive 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…

---

Filed under: News - @ February 10, 2026 2:29 pm