It is a handful of small minority who “play for real” that push the history forward


New Member
Jul 18, 2016
Chapter 0 Introduction

What force on determines the direction of Bitcoin’s onchainscaling? Three groups, users, miners and developers, almost unanimously hope to onchain scaling, except a small part of bitcoin core developers. Most obstacles to the hard fork have been eliminated, yet the obstacle from core developers cannot be passed.
Why? I have always been confused about this.

I once read one article in Wan Weigang’s Elite Daily Class, which cited one article of Taleb—The Most Intolerant Wins:The Dictatorship of the Small Minority. This article analyzed one principle from the perspective of philosophers and clearly explained that people who push the history forward are never the “main school scholars’ consensus” or “democratic selections”, but a small minority who extremely insist on “playing for real”.

After reading the articles of Wan Weigang and Taleb, I can’t help sighing and comprehended that the size of Bitcoin’s block has been locked by several people who insist on “playing for real” and insist on the 1M block.

Chapter I It is people who insist on “playing for real” that push the history forward

In his article, Taleb first mentioned the concept of “skin-in-the-game”, which means “one’s interests are in it”, namely one has spent real money in it. When saying that you are “skin-in-the-game” in a certain field, it means you are “playing for real’.

What corresponds to it is “crowds who eat the melon” (the people who watch the fun is called the crowds who eat the melon).

Taleb used this concept to express his core principle: There are too many people that eat the melon and “playing for real” is a very rare quality. Therefore, the people who push the history forward are a handful of small minority that have the quality of “playing for real”.

Taleb described his logic and also gave some examples to prove his opinions. One similar case also appeared in China.

On the packages of most American drinks, there is a sign of Kosher Certification, which is similar to the “Halal Food” in China.

In China, many milk and food package boxes are labeled with the sign of “Halal Food”. However, the Han nationality occupy an absolutely large share in consumption and they don’t care about whether it is Halal Food or not. This is very strange. Why to label food with “Halal” only for a small part of people.Taleb said there was no plot inside it and the logic that caused such a situation was like this:

*This small part of people only eat food certified by Judaism and absolutely eat nothing else. They are “playing for real”. ( A part of Hui people in our country also only eat food labeled with the sign of “Halal Food”).

* This small part of people exist throughout the country and they are not only concentrated in one place.

* Merchants simply put on labels according to their own methods and the costs are not high. Other people (the crowds that eat the melon) have no opinion about the this, because they are not “playing for real”. (For example, when Han people drink milk, we do not really care whether there is the sign of “Halal Food” on it).

* Merchants do not care, neither do most consumers. However, only a small number of people that “play for real” care about it. Therefore, merchants do according to their requirements.

* In this process, there is no plot or any violent threat: As long as this small number of people can insist on their own opinions, others have to obey them eventually.

Taleb proposed one concept named “renormalization group” to describe this phenomenon.
In fact, such a phenomenon is ubiquitous in our life. In my college years, for example, we studied in one new campus and were the first batch of students that have settled there. In the cafeteria, there was no Halal restaurant and a few Hui students then petitioned in the university’s office a few days after registrations. It turned out that the university actually set up one region as the Halal restaurant. However, its service subjects were really very limited. I thought less than 50 students were Hui people among the total 6,000 students.A large number of people with other eating habits all accepted this fact.

I used to work in one company, which set up a subsidiary in Wuxi. The subsidiary’s main employees were people from Wuxi City and they mainly spoke in Wuxi dialect in the office. However, two employees were transferred from Beijing. In the end, the company made it a rule that dialects were not allowed in the office. Most employees must cooperate these two colleagues from Beijing who speak mandarin.
Besides, public facilities all reserve exclusive ones for persons with disabilities.
Moreover, the network sensitive words exclusive in China were also caused by a small number of civil servants.

Taleb proved this logic in the political and religious fields, and he found out that it was just as what he had expected.

Chapter II Bitocoin block has been locked by small minority who insist on “playing for real” by far

There are three groups in the Bitcoin ecology: users, miners and developers. In fact, most people advocate onchain scaling. No matter how big it is, they insist on expand the 1M block. However, the developers of Bitcoin Core, namely several developers who have the voice right, insist on reserving this 1M limit. They are people “who play for real”. They insist on that “I wrote the codes, so I can refuse modifying them”.

How serious are these Bitcoin Core developers “playing for real”? The number of them is under 150, which meets the famous “Dunbar number”. They have stable financial support. They also have powerful organization and coordination ability and organize conferences regularly. They have an excellent promotion mechanism and regularly release public opinions to the community. They also have a powerful media control ability and have controlled the main media platform of the Bitcoin community. They even used the speech control means that only dictators use and seal dissidents’ opinions on a large scale. Their conversations with miners and users are also very tough.

Compared with these people “who play for real”, there are also people that starte to develop themselves and set up XT, Classic and Unlimited. Compared with Bitcoin core developers, these development teams all appear to be scattered and their strength are all in an inferior status. They have no stable financial support. Besides, their promotion strength to the external world appear to be weaker. They have no special media platform, nor the ability of strongly responding to opposing voices.

Have miners “been serious” towards the theme of expansion in the past two years? Miners face huge submergence costs, while stabilizing and continuing the current situation meets short-term interests. However, long-term interests require people to implement the onchainscaling route. In the past two years, miners have been in the defense status and few dare to substantially input capital or calculation ability to support the onchainscaling development team. The whole miner group is also a decentralized organization and cannot form a unified voice. To achieve the onchainscaling, miners mainly adopt calling, declaring, negations and pubic letters, in the hope of guiding the technical route. The fact has proved that it was useless doing so, as they will still be taken as “crowds who eat the melon”.

However, users are also “crowds who eat the melon”. This group basically has no organization ability and they cannot take unified actions. Users hold Bitcoins mainly to wait for the price to rise. However, the factors influencing whether the price goes up or not are too complicated, and the scaling does not consist of the sufficient and necessary conditions of increased price, nor does not consist of the motive that promote people to “play for real”. In the past two years, besides writing articles to express their opinions on the network, users have actually been “eating the melon”. The real desperation and using one’s feet to vote that “if no onchainscaling, I will no longer play” are not users’ reasonable choices. The reasonable choice of users is still to continue “eating the melon”. After all, I, as one user holding Bitcoins, is one stubborn supporter of big block. However, even the current block has been blocked in 1M, I will continue buying more.

In the situation that the minority “who play for real” VS “the crowds who eat the melon”, the minority are not tolerant and refuse to compromise, while the crowds who eat the melon cry and scream. In this way, the quarrel has lasted for over two years. The incident was complete.y dominated by the minority “who play for real”. It is a pity that the minority are wrong.


New Member
Jul 18, 2016
Chapter III The onchainscaling needs another minority “who play for real” to break the deadlock

Gavin who held high the banner of onchainscaling and his first shot was Bitcoin XT. However, he was soon drowned by public opinions.

It seems that Bitcoin Classical also failed to insist on “playing for real”.

The time that I really see a turnabout is when seeing one piece of news, which said unlimited developed received 500,000 dollars’ donations. This means a large amount of capital starts to tilt towards onchainscaling clearly, and it is the input of real money. It is “playing for real”. 500,000 dollars is a big sum of money. This is called “playing for real”.

Unlimited developing team carried out technical promotion and conferences to promote to the media in an organized manner. They included the Xthin block, Flexible_Transactions (the SW competing solutions) and online conferences, such as OnchainScaling, as well as a series of systematic and organized contacts. This is “playing for real”.

Shortly after the mining pool of ViaBTC was set up, people made public statements about testing Bitcoin Unlimited, and their clearly expressed their intention towards big block to the media. This is also “playing for real”.

Various signs have shown that some people have started to be devoted to using real money to promote the block expansion. What is more noteworthy is: This minority group includes developers who write codes, sponsors who offer money and miners. Maybe we will see more cases in which people are serious about expansion. Can they match with another minority —Bitcoin Core Developer? Who will “play the game more real”? Besides, will they eventually guide “crows who eat the melon” to use their software?

Chapter IV. The minority that “play the real game” determine the history is neutral

After reading Taleb’s article, I first signed and thought that I had subjective initiative. In fact, I was only one member of “the crowds that eat the melon”. As a minority, one can determine the historical progress. Maybe this will act against our intuition, yet we would rather believe that this world obeys the subjective initiative of the majority. After all, we are always one member of the majority. However, I was soon relieved, for this law is actually neutral.

This law is neutral itself and the law does not necessarily bring vicious outcomes or necessarily refer to kindness. A small number of bad people can do the wrong thing by “playing for real”. Just like most masses enslaved by the dictatorship government formed by a small number of servants. Similarly, a small number of good people can also benefit the world by “playing for real”. In fact, the computer and Internet that we currently apply so widely were invented and promoted by an extremely small number of minority who are stubborn about “being real” towards science.

If a small number of people do bad things by “playing for real”, such as using the national firewall to prevent us from obtaining more real information about the world, most people may stand up to restrict the bad behaviors of these minorities. For example, we will “break the wall” and make abuses. However, our determinations surely cannot match those of the small number of evil-doers. The results are that the majority of us have to bear the persecution of the firewall. Just like this, “the crowds who eat the melon” are those secretly threatened.

The minority that advocate small block like Bitcoin Core developers are also famous for being stubborn. In the scaling controversy in the past two years, most Bitcoin users have to accept the results left by their “playing for real”.

Of course, there are also people who uses the law of “playing it real” to benefit people “who eat the melon”. Science was just created by the small minority that “play for real” and benefit people “who eat the melon”. The whole world is thus benefited. Without people like Bruno who insisted on that the Sun is the center till his death, we may still believe that Earth is the center of the universe.

Chapter V Use “playing for real” to arm ourselves

As long as we know this law and understand this principle, we might as well as take it as a living attitude. For things that we care about, we must treat seriously and insist on being the small minority that have subjective awareness.

In terms of scaling Bitcoin’s block, the minority that insist on “playing for real” in the block includes me. I will support the onchainscaling by writing articles.

Chapter 6 Conclusion

The most unbeatable people in the world are the small minority who are most resolute and most unwilling to compromise. They are always “playing for real”.

My bitcoin address:14mhzjkJ71oMAMkKu3dy98dnUpkyQBHL1r


Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
Good article. I feel it overlooks the role of businesses which support Bitcoin payments to some extent. These businesses make a big difference to whether ordinary users will want to procure Bitcoin. If I can spend Bitcoin on daily living expenses, then it becomes real money and not just a virtual store of wealth which may collapse in the long run.
To achieve the onchainscaling, miners mainly adopt calling, declaring, negations and pubic letters, in the hope of guiding the technical route.
I have always wondered the following.
Let's assume the support for small blocks is limited to very few mining/exchange companies. For example, @HelloGuy claimed "Chinese companies are not committed to Core's roadmap, except BTCC."
However, if this is the case, why do the rest (which is majority of Chinese miners, I believe) keep using the methods that have not proven very successful (calling, declaring, negations [negotiations?] and public letters) ?

It would be much more effective to send a message to the ecosystem if they signal BIP109 blocks instead.
This would signal "there is a real group of miners who support on-chain scaling, and they are willing to exercise their power.

Without doing this, I am not surprised that Core developers feel they do not have to compromise, and they feel they have no real opposition.

There is only one significant disagreement I have with a statement in your article. It is this statement:
The real desperation and using one’s feet to vote that “if no onchainscaling, I will no longer play” are not users’ reasonable choices. The reasonable choice of users is still to continue “eating the melon”. After all, I, as one user holding Bitcoins, is one stubborn supporter of big block. However, even the current block has been blocked in 1M, I will continue buying more.
You are looking at it from your own perspective. I am also stubborn, but I do not continue to buy Bitcoin due to the block size debate over last 2 years, and how miners have let the small group of 1MB supporters in Core outweigh the on-chain scaling needs of the network.

As a user, I have diversified, and it has been a very good strategy. I would continue buying into Bitcoin only if I think that there are not active steps to limit or even destroy its potential.
Over the last two years, I have seen destructive steps by Core, and they have received support from miners. This has left me with a very bad feeling about Bitcoin's future. I can no longer recommend Bitcoin with certainty as a good investment choice until the problems have been resolved.

I am equally stubborn, so I have told myself: If none of the major development projects (XT, Classic, BU or Core) offer a true hard fork option with bigger blocks in the near future (this year), then I will put my efforts (time and money) to making it happen.

But this has one problem. So much time has passed that SegWit release - even if nearly 6 months late - is around the corner.
If SegWit is released and the majority of miners activate it, then it will re-inforce Core's position.

BIP109 signalling to support bigger blocks would have been a nice thing, but one cannot roll back the time.

In chemistry and politics, there is the litmus test [1]. ( 石蕊试纸 )

SegWit is the litmus test of Chinese miner's support for true onchain scaling. If they do not exercise their rightful voice to obtain the larger block hard fork that Core developers promised to code (and I believe that they negotiated requirements for this HF with Chinese miner representatives already), then it will be clear that Core has control over the action of Chinese miners and therefore control of Bitcoin is entirely centralized (failure of decentralized development and decentralized mining).

Even the most stubborn but reasonable user will have to conclude at that stage that Bitcoin is no longer on a roadmap of being well-scaled p2p money for people across the world, but instead is on a corporately-controlled roadmap towards a settlement systems with Layer-2 payment hub network and sidechains run by corporations like BitFury and Blockstream, who will be the new "financial institutions", but similar to the old financial institutions that Satoshi mentioned in the first sentence of the opening chapter of the whitepaper:
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliff