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.