According to @FarsideUK, the account urged readers to read The Blocksize War and linked to its books page on Oct 19, 2025, source: https://twitter.com/FarsideUK/status/1979855404629901569 and https://farside.co.uk/books/. The book by Jonathan Bier documents the 2015–2017 Bitcoin blocksize debate, SegWit activation, and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard fork, providing traders historical context on governance-driven risks to BTC such as fork events and on-chain congestion, source: Jonathan Bier, The Blocksize War, 2021. These historical episodes have been associated with fee spikes and liquidity frictions around upgrade milestones, making them relevant for risk management in BTC trading, source: Jonathan Bier, The Blocksize War, 2021.

According to @BitMEXResearch, the recent Bitcoin Core update raised the OP_RETURN relay policy filter limit but did not change the actual OP_RETURN size limit or the Bitcoin blocksize limit, so this is not a blocksize increase (source: @BitMEXResearch). According to @BitMEXResearch, maintaining a strict blocksize cap is presented as the robust long-term defense against spam-like data (e.g., music collections or encrypted documents), whereas relay filters are neither effective nor decentralization-friendly because a small minority of nodes can bypass them and effective filtering creates centralization pressure (source: @BitMEXResearch). According to @BitMEXResearch, the small-block position remains intact with a reasonable blocksize limit designed to protect the network from spam, confirming no structural capacity expansion for BTC introduced by this change, a status important for traders tracking on-chain conditions and decentralization risks (source: @BitMEXResearch).

According to BitMEX Research, many nodes opting for Bitcoin Knots are primarily signaling dissatisfaction with Bitcoin Core, echoing the blocksize war when running Bitcoin Unlimited was ineffective at achieving change (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 18, 2025). According to BitMEX Research, Knots is effectively Core, so attempts to tighten Bitcoin relay policy by running Knots will not succeed even if a majority of nodes adopt it (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 18, 2025). According to BitMEX Research, this means traders should not expect Knots adoption to trigger network-wide relay or mempool policy shifts when assessing BTC fee dynamics and transaction propagation risks (source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 18, 2025).

According to BitMEX Research, some pro-Knots voices are amplifying CSAM risk and, paradoxically, this fear narrative could increase the chance of CSAM appearing on-chain more than raising the default relay policy limit would, highlighting a narrative-over-policy risk dynamic for BTC. Source: BitMEX Research, Oct 10, 2025. According to BitMEX Research, the situation mirrors the blocksize war, where messaging harmed Bitcoin’s consumer payments narrative more than the blocksize rule itself, implying narrative-driven headwinds can outweigh technical settings in shaping near-term Bitcoin market sentiment. Source: BitMEX Research, Oct 10, 2025. According to BitMEX Research, BTC traders should monitor three signals: the intensity of CSAM-related discourse, communications on Bitcoin Knots relay policy defaults, and references to blocksize war precedents as potential sentiment catalysts. Source: BitMEX Research, Oct 10, 2025.

According to BitMEX Research, the Blocksize War was won so market participants do not need to police what goes on‑chain, beg peers not to relay transactions, or plead with miners about block contents, reaffirming a neutral relay and mining stance for Bitcoin (BTC). Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 1, 2025. For traders, this signals no advocated change to BTC transaction inclusion norms or mempool relay behavior, aligning execution assumptions with the existing feerate-driven fee market used by nodes and miners. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 1, 2025; Bitcoin Core mempool and feerate policy documentation; BIP 125 Replace-By-Fee, 2016. This message focuses on network policy rather than price guidance, so near-term trading relevance centers on maintaining current assumptions for confirmation risk, fee budgeting, and settlement finality rather than protocol change risk. Source: BitMEX Research on X, Oct 1, 2025; Bitcoin Core policy documentation.

According to BitMEX Research, the team is highlighting the re-emergence of rhetoric similar to the past 'large blocker' debate and clarifies it is not a judgment that prior large blockers were wrong nor that current adopters are wrong, source: BitMEX Research on X/Twitter dated Aug 17, 2025. For trading, this statement functions as narrative context rather than a directional call, implying a neutral near-term signal for BTC positioning with no explicit fork or protocol-change claim in this update, source: BitMEX Research on X/Twitter dated Aug 17, 2025. The reference to 'large blockers' points to the historical Bitcoin blocksize dispute documented by BitMEX Research, offering context but no immediate market catalyst in this post, sources: BitMEX Research book The Blocksize War 2021 and BitMEX Research on X/Twitter dated Aug 17, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, recent rhetoric comparing Bitcoin Core to the Chinese Communist Party mischaracterizes the current governance discussion and is very different from the historical blocksize war, reducing the validity of direct analogies to a 2017-style conflict, source: BitMEX Research, X, Aug 17, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, the post also references multiple historical Bitcoin client implementations (Bitcoin Core, BitcoinXT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Knots), noting close relationships rather than clearly separate camps, which challenges claims of a binary developer split, source: BitMEX Research, X, Aug 17, 2025. According to @BitMEXResearch, the post cites no concrete activation path, miner signaling, or upgrade timetable, indicating no confirmed near-term catalyst for a contentious BTC hard fork based on the information presented, a point traders can use when evaluating fork-premium or volatility narratives, source: BitMEX Research, X, Aug 17, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, some current rhetoric compares Bitcoin Core to the Chinese Communist Party, but the present situation is very different from the historical Blocksize War (source: @BitMEXResearch). @BitMEXResearch added that during the blocksize debate, Bitcoin Core, BitcoinXT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Knots were mostly written by the same contributors, highlighting overlapping development rather than a clean client split — a distinction BTC traders should factor into governance-related risk assessment (source: @BitMEXResearch).

According to BitMEX Research, 'The Blocksize War' book, published in March 2021, recounts the internal conflict within Bitcoin from 2015 to 2017 between 'large blockers' and 'small blockers'. The book attempts neutrality, documenting the eventual victory of the 'small blockers'. Recently, it faced criticism from notable figures such as @TheVladCostea, @jamesob, and @VitalikButerin. This discourse is crucial for traders as it highlights the strategic errors and successes that influenced Bitcoin's scalability solutions, impacting current market dynamics and decision-making for Bitcoin trading strategies.

According to BitMEX Research, the book 'The Blocksize War' may not be useful for current 'Bitcoin maxis', but could still provide valuable insights into historical events for other trading groups. This analysis is relevant for traders as it highlights the varied impact of past technical debates on Bitcoin's market behavior and network stability. Source: BitMEX Research.

According to BitMEX Research, discussions on the Blocksize War and Hijacking Bitcoin primarily rehash previous arguments regarding large blocks from 2017, offering no new insights for traders. The commentary lacks novel strategies or anecdotes that could inform trading decisions, thus providing limited actionable intelligence for market participants. Source: BitMEX Research.

According to BitMEX Research, the Blocksize War was a political victory that involved a detailed analysis of the political mistakes made by proponents of larger block sizes in Bitcoin. This analysis was not present in 'Hijacking Bitcoin', indicating a unique perspective on the political dynamics within the Bitcoin community.

According to BitMEX Research, the claim that Bitcoin was completely hijacked lacks an analysis of the strategic errors made by proponents of larger block sizes that led to the alleged 'hijacking' of Bitcoin. They highlight that 'The Blocksize War' provides a detailed examination of these mistakes, offering insights into the dynamics of Bitcoin's development and the conflicts over block size.

According to BitMEX Research, Roger Ver had significantly more access to the pivotal events of the Blocksize War compared to the author of the book on the subject. BitMEX Research suggests that if Ver had documented these events himself, the resulting book could have been more engaging and informative for readers interested in the historical context of this critical period in Bitcoin's development.

According to BitMEX Research, the blocksize war within the Bitcoin community was about more than just the technical aspect of blocksize. In 2015, there was opposition to figures like Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, who were associated with the Bitcoin Foundation and perceived as linked to major financial institutions. This opposition has evolved, with some now challenging the current Bitcoin Core developers, suggesting an ongoing tension between different factions within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

According to BitMEX Research, during The Blocksize War, several onchain votes occurred, although participation was notably low. A significant event was when Roger Ver acquired the main voting website, prompting some small blockers to create their own onchain voting systems to avoid the influence of the centralized site.

According to BitMEX Research, Amir Taaki likely supported the smaller blockers during the onset of The Blocksize War in 2015. BitMEX Research describes Amir as an anti-establishment radical, suggesting he may have viewed Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn as too aligned with business interests. This historical perspective could provide insights into the ideological divides that have shaped Bitcoin's development.