I don't know about that, but someone hijacked my $BCH on SmartBCH... 😅

Part 1/13:

The Tragedy and Potential of Bitcoin: A Reflection on Its True Purpose and the Hijacking of a Revolutionary Technology

The Promise of Bitcoin: An Emancipationist Monastery of Money

Bitcoin emerged as a beacon of hope in the long saga of monetary history—a technological revolution meant to free the world from the corrupt grip of government-controlled fiat systems. Born in 2008 with Satoshi Nakamoto’s whitepaper titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", the code was rooted in a simple yet profound vision: to create digital money that operated outside the reach of centralized authorities, trusted third parties, or government manipulation.

Part 2/13:

For over a decade, the community and passionate advocates believed that Bitcoin could be "sound, stable, democratic, and incorruptible"—embodying the vision of liberty, economic freedom, and direct peer-to-peer transactions. This was a technology designed for everyday commerce, allowing fast, low-cost, permissionless payments that could drastically change how we conduct financial exchanges and move toward a freer global economy.

The Monumental Unfulfilled Dream

Despite the early momentum, hopes that Bitcoin would redefine money for the entire world have been largely disappointed. After initial success—marked by mainstream companies accepting Bitcoin and exponential price growth—its actual usage for daily transactions has waned dramatically.

Part 3/13:

Today, Bitcoin is widely regarded as "digital gold," a store of value, rather than digital cash. This shift in narrative has led to a concerning state of stagnation: high fees, slow transactions, and reliance on custodial solutions that undermine its core purpose. The original design—optimized for fast, cheap, peer-to-peer payments—was intentionally distorted over the years, turning Bitcoin into a speculative asset rather than a usable monetary network.

The Takeover: How Design Changes Subverted the Original Vision

Part 4/13:

The crux of the problem lies in human intervention—specifically, the takeover by a faction of developers who decided to change Bitcoin's core design. It was a gradual hijacking from 2014 to 2017, during which influential participants and organizations pivoted to limit functionality, impose restrictions, and control key upgrades.

The Shift from Digital Cash to Store of Value

Initially, Bitcoin aimed to facilitate everyday transactions. Its whitepaper strongly emphasized functions like “sending payments directly from one party to another without a financial intermediary”. This emphasis was consistent with Satoshi’s writings and early forum discussions.

Part 5/13:

However, as the network’s fees spiked and scalability issues became apparent, the narrative shifted. Developers implemented changes—like increasing the minimum transaction fee and restricting block size—that hamstrung Bitcoin’s payment utility. Instead, Bitcoin was increasingly seen as a "digital gold"—a scarce, high-value asset suitable for holding rather than spending.

The Failed Blocksize Wars

The fundamental discord involved how to scale Bitcoin. The original design supported large blocks and high throughput, but factional debates emerged between big-blockers and small-blockers.

• Big-blockers advocated for larger blocks to enable more transactions per second, aligning with Satoshi’s vision of scalable payments.

Part 6/13:

• Small-blockers feared large blocks would centralize the network, as only expensive infrastructure could process big blocks, and promoted keeping blocks small, relying on off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network.

This division led to multiple contentious attempts at upgrades—namely Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and SegWit2x—each attempting to raise the block size or implement second-layer solutions. These efforts faced censorship, censorship, and sabotage from influential core developers and corporate entities, notably Blockstream.

The Role of Blockstream and Censorship

Part 7/13:

Blockstream, a company founded as a for-profit entity with significant backing from mainstream financial institutions and venture capital, became a key player in shaping Bitcoin’s trajectory. Their efforts to promote "sidechains" and "atomic swaps" served to divert traffic away from on-chain scaling, effectively creating a controlled, capped system with higher fees and limited user control.

Through online forums, control of major websites, and social media, key figures like Theymos and Cobra orchestrated a narrative that dismissed larger blocks as "dangerous" or “not Bitcoin.” Crucially, they pushed to reposition Bitcoin as a “store of value” rather than an accessible payment platform, even editing or questioning the original whitepaper itself.

Part 8/13:

The Consequences of Corporate and Developer Hijacking

The result of this intervention is a network that no longer fulfills its initial promise. Transactions can cost tens of dollars during congestion, confirmation times stretch into days, and reliance on custodial wallets—posing censorship risks and giving control to third parties—has become the norm.

Meanwhile, the original, scalable version of Bitcoin—sometimes called Bitcoin Cash (BCH)—remains committed to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision. Built from the same foundational technology but without the restrictions imposed by the Core faction, BCH supports larger blocks, lower fees, and true peer-to-peer transactions.

The Failed Attempts at Consensus and the Path Forward

Part 9/13:

Multiple efforts to resolve scalability issues between 2015 and 2017 culminated in failed agreements. Key proposals like Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and SegWit2x aimed to increase block size and adopt improvements, but were blocked by influential Core developers who prioritized maintaining control over the network's rules.

Censorship on major forums, shadowy influence by corporate interests, and internal conflicts led to widespread disillusionment. For example:

• Bitcoin XT was suppressed using moderation policies.

• SegWit2x, a compromise plan, was ultimately canceled after industry support waned and the community divided.

• Bitcoin Unlimited and other emergent solutions faced hacking and attacks, revealing the fragility of attempts to push larger blocks.

Part 10/13:

Eventually, the community was split, and BCH emerged as a decentralized, fully scalable alternative aligning with Satoshi’s original vision.

The True Power Behind the Network: Human and Ideological Struggles

The history of Bitcoin reveals that technological potential alone is insufficient. Human factors—leadership, governance models, ideological commitment—are decisive. The shift from original design to a restricted, high-fee system was driven by strategic influence from a small, powerful group of developers and corporate interests pursuing their own agendas.

Part 11/13:

Notably, some early influential figures, like Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, expressed disillusionment, citing the loss of decentralization and failure to uphold the original promise. Hearn famously declared Bitcoin a "failed project" because of the human failures of factions aiming for control over the protocol rather than adherence to the founding principles.

The Call to Action: Return to the Original Vision

Despite setbacks, the core potential for Bitcoin as "sound, free, and fast digital cash" remains alive in projects like Bitcoin Cash. With larger blocks, low fees, and open access, BCH truly embodies the original vision of a decentralized monetary system, capable of scaling to meet global demands.

Part 12/13:

Realizing this future requires human effort: building, experimenting, and unshackling from centralizing influences—both human and technological. It involves educating users, supporting open-source development, and resisting censorship and narrative control from entrenched corporate and developer factions.

Conclusion: A New Era of Monetary Freedom

Bitcoin’s journey illustrates both the potential and the perils of revolutionary technology. If wielded responsibly, it can catalyze a new era of sound money, personal sovereignty, and economic prosperity. But if left to a small clique of gatekeepers, it risks becoming just another tool of control—solidifying the very corruption it was meant to overcome.

Part 13/13:

The original dream was simple: to create a free, digital cash that anyone could use anywhere, without permission or censorship. That dream is still alive, waiting for a collective effort to reclaim and realize it. As the technology continues to develop, the critical battle for Bitcoin’s future remains human—defined by openness, decentralization, and unwavering commitment to liberty.

The fight for Bitcoin’s soul continues. The choice—to reinforce centralization or to revive the foundational ideals—rests with all of us.