---
title: "Chad Elwartowski I was there too, and that's not how I remember it..."
date: 2025-07-05
source: facebook
type: comment
context: "Archer T. Ships replied to Andrew Wagner's comment."
fb_link: "https://www.facebook.com/dyi/l/?l=AYMKmR8DvxRUYt1bhOl9qvC3U3mrhf-SGaZo5EXrgmuEzfQrNWBe6PUsTHUIQvhzAia1oumGbbBz8Xq0V8fPyn8ziWC_79bN7GD_H4F3nL1Y7x-7dfDLHEVvGK_B70BwDPmwLMiG5_Qok6cVvne2RtUiuogxhiMx2-D3nvDy1wPywpbMb8xwfaUOhlJcmsM55FDDgBYAqpI&s=519"
---

# Chad Elwartowski I was there too, and that's not how I remember it...

*July 5, 2025 — Comment Archer T. Ships replied to Andrew Wagner's comment.*

Chad Elwartowski I was there too, and that's not how I remember it either.  I remember that the small blockers (aka theymos) vigorously suppressed discussion of any alternatives to (small block) Bitcoin  in the most popular bitcoin forums ( Bitcointalk.org and /r/bitcoin) at the time, a practice that they continue to this day. Given the massive resistance to merely increasing the blocksize (which Satoshi himself supported), I find the claim that Vitalik could've made the the changes required for Ethereum on Bitcoin layer 1 highly implausible.  Paul Sztorc has been trying to get the relatively small changes required for his drivechain proposals (BIP 300 and BIP 301) adopted by Bitcoin Core for 7+ years now. Given that Ethereum adoption dwarfs all of the projects that have tried to build smart contracts as a side chain to Bitcoin (rootstock, etc.), I think he made the right decision.