Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC

by Roger Ver, Steve Patterson, Jeffrey Tucker (contributor)

Bitcoin was promised to be a liberating technology, a free market alternative to state-controlled money. But that promise was broken after a small group of insiders took over the project and fundamentally changed Bitcoin's design.

Few people know the true history of Bitcoin and its original design due to years of heavy censorship, social media engineering, and tight information controls online. Hijacking Bitcoin destroys the most popular narratives that surround Bitcoin and sets the historical record straight.

Roger Ver's passion and pain come through as he tells the story of a beloved project corrupted in front of his eyes. Written by one of the most prominent figures in the cryptocurrency industry, this book is impossible to ignore.

From the inside

Bitcoin has been captured and changed for the worse. That's the undeniable conclusion of Hijacking Bitcoin. Chocked full of history and inconvenient truths, this book goes on a myth-busting rampage against the most popular narratives that surround BTC.

Is Bitcoin truly decentralized? Is it supposed to be digital gold or digital cash? Did the original design really have scaling problems? Roger Ver addresses these questions head-on and provides uncomfortable answers.

Roger Ver is the world's first investor in Bitcoin startups and has been a prominent name in the cryptocurrency industry since the beginning. Yet, as he confesses in the introduction, this book is not a love story. It's a devastating exposé of the corruption, propaganda, and centralization of power in Bitcoin.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Finance, History, Technology, Audiobook, Business

304 pages, Paperback

Published April 5, 2024

Reviews

[Patrick Peterson]

2025-05-04 Last year, my brother read this and thought it important, so he gave me a copy. I could not get to it for a few months, but finally did a couple months ago.

It was very well written. The author is a gifted author, with clear thoughts and enlightening descriptions and ideas.

The history of bitcoin was told in a very helpful way. I had become aware of bitcoin fairly early on (maybe only 2-3 years after it began in 2009) and tried to understand the technology, in addition to the implications both financial, social and ideological. I never became totally comfortable with the technical aspects of bitcoin and hence missed out on investing, which was a huge mistake. That kept me from being a true supporter of it financially, socially and ideologically, even though I had no beef with either of the two latter aspects, and rather liked it as a great potential alternative to the fiat currency standard, and perhaps as a friendly competitor to gold.

So, the book helped me understand more of the technical hang-ups I had with bitcoin.
It answered one very big issue - how could the technology scale on a worldwide and billions or trillions of transactions level. And most interesting, but difficult of all, was the governance of bitcoin - who controlled it, and what they did and its implications.

The key point the author made is that Bitcoin was/is controlled by the developers and they kept the block size too small to accommodate transactional growth from becoming a true world currency (with cheap, fast, and ubiquitous transactions).

They got sucked in and remunerated by the “store of value” aspect of Bitcoin as money, as opposed to the “medium of exchange” true purpose, as Satoshi and so many of the original developers, evangelists, entrepreneurs, etc. envisioned and worked for - and what money's main definition is all about.

The implications because the block size was not allowed to grow adequately, were that the time delay and actual monetary cost of transactions skyrocketed, so the ability of bitcoin to move to the next level of actually competing with fiat currencies, as actual transaction media, was crippled. Bitcoin no longer is thought of as being able to be used for non-significant (large value) sized transactions because of the costs, both monetary and in time delays ae too great. Very sad.

An alternative to the commonly known "bitcoin," with the same genealogy until the big "fork" is Bitcoin Cash, is discussed quite well, but not as comprehensively, or possibly as objectively. Perhaps the reason is that Bitcoin Cash took off in value early on, but then crashed and never recovered it's cache, so has not appreciated in value &/or use the way the developers/backers hoped.

So that leaves us with a Bitcoin that has appreciated in value from virtually no value at creation in 2009, to just under $80,000 t0 over $100,000 in trading value since Nov. 2024 (I am writing on 4 May 2025).

So, what to do about it?

This book has helped me understand, and I really appreciate it.
But I am still feeling a need for more good info/analysis.

[Lushmile]

After living through the events of the Hash War, the fork, the Craig Wright fiasco and the attempted compulsory block dev tax. I thought I would learn nothing from this read. In fact I not only learned a few tidbits but realized it was written in such a way that even the most brainwashed BTCers or noobs to the crypto space could easily understand the historical context and get enough information to dive down that rabbit hole, and verify, for themselves, that every word spoken in this book is true.

I expect this book rating to be destroyed here on goodreads since btcers will likely come here and 1 star the crud out of it, but that has been their modus operandi since day one. Ignore these ratings this should be a read for everyone who loves bitcoin, hates the fed, thinks the government should get their hands out of our money, or just wants another reason to hate on us Bcashers.

Edit(4/30/2024) and marking as a spoiler because it seems to be a continuation of the hijacking bitcoin scenario: Seems like the US government does not like what Roger Ver Wrote in this book. Strangely enough, even though he expatriated as US citizen in 2014 he was just arrested for tax fraud of a 50 million outstanding debt. The government seems to be claiming, that his(and his companies) significant movement of BTC assets in and around June 2017(and sold to exchanges in nov 2017) to fiat currency constituted capital gains. My opinion(best guess): Since his companies spent a considerable fortune(fiat currency) during the multiple hashwars and many of those assets moved from BTC to BCH> The government claim of 'the exchange "sale to cash"' - was a temporary holding before moving to BCH - Roger made it very clear at the time he was moving the majority of assets from btc to bch around this time. It is also my opinion, that Fiat currency was never acquired,other than as a temporary clearing house position, during these movements and instead moved from one liquid asset to the other or in the case of hashwar fight resulted in considerable capital asset losses in the process of doing business these expenditures would have been "deducted" from the tax returns. I just think this is another case of confusion when it comes to the cryptocurrency tax laws that exist in the USA. Seems more like Government problem rather than a bitcoin problem. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/early-...

[Jacob]

I knew very little about the history of Bitcoin going in to this book. I was very surprised when it turned out to be a very interesting story on the History of Bitcoin and the infighting among developers and the BTC community. I read the book very fast as I was very interested to see what happened next.

This book would have me second guessing on investing money into BTC. The book goes into depth on how bitcoin was originally meant to be online/digital cash that is independent from any 3rd party privacy breaches. However, today's Bitcoin is very different from that initial vision. The high price you hear about on news/social media is not necessarily because bitcoin is valuable but rather a product of hype and excitement behind the mere idea of a de-centralized digital currency.

The Author, Roger Ver, was heavily involved in Bitcoin at first, but once the 'Bitcoin Core' developers lost the trust of the Bitcoin Community, He began working on a "fork" of the Bitcoin Software, called "Bitcoin Cash" (Ticker: BCH). The goal of BCH is in line with the initial goal of BTC. Fast online cash that can rival Visa/Paypal for digital transactions.

As of writing this review, BCH is currently valued at ~$400 per coin and BTC is ~100,000 per coin. This book left me thinking that BCH has a lot of room to grow, both in value and utility, and BTC does not. However, as the book details, the BTC developers seem to have powerful influences on their side that can censor critics in the crypto community and keep people from learning the original purpose of Bitcoin.

[Erwin]

Excellent book about what Bitcoin could have been compared to what's it became.
The most intelligent book that I've read concerning anything cryptocurrency related.

Ver and others frequently appeal to "The Bitcoin Whitepaper" (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) and while it's an excellent point and Bitcoin clearly has been "Hijacked", every human system has political dimensions. Sure, maybe those running it have diverged from the founders plans. It's analogous to people complaining "that's not what the constitution says".

Unfortunately, I don't think Bitcoin Cash will have a revival. Clearly the "killer app" of Bitcoin right now is the price, and the fact that transactions are slow and expensive gives whales more opportunity to intervene during large price declines.

It's an interesting dynamic.

I 100% agree with Ver's logic that a store of value derives from being a medium of exchange. I would assume this is self evident... Will be interesting to watch.

[Dennis Gilmour]

At least two sides to everything

Nothing good in life is simple. I like to say, "Duality is a reality, polarization is a possibility, and out-of-the-box thinking is epiphany". Roger demonstrated these levels of thinking to help the reader understand the history and tech of Bitcoin better. I'm less naive now of the pros and cons of Bitcoin.

[Andrew]

Glad to have read this book on a significant part of Bitcoin's history. Some rather (seemingly) appalling behavior from the Bitcoin Core group. I'm still not sure whether their behavior stemmed from: (1) commercial conflict of interest (Blockstream), (2) capture by government(s), or (3) extreme conviction in the validity of their approach to developing Bitcoin's use case and functionality. Perhaps this book could have benefited from some scholarly treatment of store of value vs. medium of exchange and some explanation (or reasoning) on why Bitcoin Core took the small blocker position assuming the truth of option 3 above (i.e. giving some context to their dogmatism -- were they right to have taken Bitcoin in a different direction from what Satoshi envisioned?). I might need to go back and review some of The Bitcoin Standard to get that academic context, although I don't appreciate how that book contains some inaccuracies re: blocksize as Ver points out.

[Marc LeBlanc]

Paradigm Shift

I purchased this title after watching a Tucker Carlson interview of Roger Ver on YouTube.

I'm not sure how to illustrate the impression this revelational read had on me, a fan of Bitcoin for over a decade. It was like the day my father told me Santa Claus does not exist. It's a complete change of paradigm for me.

I now realize what a fallacy it is to believe Bitcoin is the answer to money. In fact, I come out of this read convinced the Bitcoin of today is not the Bitcoin I was mining in my garage back in 2013.

I also have been made aware and awoken away from the slogan that Bitcoin is decentralized. Far from it.

This is a well-written, clear, easy to understand telling of the story of Bitcoin. I would recommend it as a must read for everyone interested in crypto.

[Kilian Krüger]

Hijacking Bitcoin offers a profound exploration of Bitcoin’s original purpose, the forces that diverted it from its path, and the vision of its mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. The book delves into how Bitcoin, initially designed as a decentralized and censorship-resistant currency, was gradually co-opted by entities seeking profit and control, undermining its core principles of financial sovereignty and peer-to-peer transactions.

Through detailed analysis, the author sheds light on the motivations behind this hijacking and the resulting limitations placed on Bitcoin’s functionality. Satoshi’s vision of a currency free from institutional interference and accessible to everyone is contrasted with the current state of Bitcoin as a speculative asset dominated by centralized players.

The book also introduces an alternative cryptocurrency that has risen to restore the original functionality and philosophy of Bitcoin. This alternative embodies Satoshi’s ideals, emphasizing true decentralization, low transaction costs, and scalability—traits Bitcoin has struggled to maintain in its current iteration.

For anyone seeking to understand the history, challenges, and future of Bitcoin, Hijacking Bitcoin is a must-read, offering not just a critique but also hope for a return to the ideals that sparked this financial revolution.

[Ietrio]

the guy surely sounds like the average entitled socialist white male : the concept should not be ready to function in the real world, but it has to be sandboxed and only he and his buddies could work. to make things more entertaining, sure, it has to go global so he can enjoy the value poured in from all parts of the world.

differently put: the guy complains about the financial markets, who have stained the purity of his totem, and at the same time the value captured from the financial markets is magically proof the system is good.

[Freddy]

Page turning book

I read “The Blocksize Wars” but I’m glad that I had the chance to read this one. His point of view is valid and he says things that I didn’t know about. I think that people who invest in Bitcoin aren’t well informed about what’s happening backstage. Very enlightening. I was only wondering why he didn’t write this book sooner.

[Mark]

The is a book abut the history of bitcoin. How wonderful to be alive at the right time to witness such a thing.

[Goodi]

It's a big club and you ain't in it. The author makes a coherent case for big blocks and addresses criticisms directly. Despite being thoughtfully written parts of the book still come across as conspiratorial and sour grapes but some of the accusations against bitcoin core are big if true.

[Mike]

Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC — Roger Ver & Steve Patterson

One-Sentence Recall

Bitcoin began as an attempt to create peer-to-peer electronic cash, but Ver and Patterson argue that a small group of developers and aligned interests effectively captured its governance, restricted on-chain scaling, suppressed competing views, and transformed BTC from a potentially revolutionary medium of exchange into an increasingly speculative “digital gold” asset.

One-Minute Reboot

The book retells the history of Bitcoin through the block-size war. Bitcoin’s original ambition was enormous: decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash capable of becoming useful in everyday economic activity. As adoption increased, however, Bitcoin ran into its 1 MB block-size limit. One camp wanted blocks to grow with demand; the Bitcoin Core camp favored keeping the base layer constrained and moving much activity elsewhere.

Ver and Patterson argue that this wasn’t merely a technical disagreement. Control over Bitcoin Core development, the requirement for “developer consensus,” Blockstream’s influence, and control or moderation of major information channels allowed a surprisingly small number of people to determine Bitcoin’s direction. Big-block advocates and alternative implementations were marginalized, while discussion was censored on important Bitcoin forums and communities.

The eventual result was the 2017 split that produced Bitcoin Cash. BTC retained the overwhelming network effect and increasingly embraced “digital gold”; BCH preserved the big-block, inexpensive-payment philosophy but failed to achieve comparable adoption.

The deeper lesson is therefore larger than BTC versus BCH: a nominally decentralized protocol can still develop highly centralized points of control in its software development, governance and information environment.

Story / Argument Spine

Bitcoin’s original value proposition was peer-to-peer electronic cash → increasing adoption required greater transaction capacity → the temporary block-size constraint became a permanent scaling battleground → Core developers resisted substantial on-chain scaling → Blockstream introduced particularly troubling incentive conflicts because constrained base-layer capacity increased the relevance of secondary-layer solutions → big-block alternatives and their advocates encountered coordinated resistance and censorship → attempts at compromise ultimately failed → Bitcoin Cash split away → BTC retained the Bitcoin name and network effects while its dominant narrative shifted toward store of value / digital gold.

The book’s central claim is that this amounted to a hijacking: Bitcoin kept the name while abandoning an essential part of the purpose that had made the original project revolutionary.

Memory Hooks

• Big blocks vs. small blocks: What initially sounds like an obscure engineering argument actually determines what kind of monetary system Bitcoin can become.

• The 1 MB limit: Originally a protective constraint, it became the mechanism through which transaction capacity remained artificially scarce.

• Medium of exchange → store of value: The crucial economic argument. A durable store of value ultimately needs underlying usefulness. Declaring something “digital gold” does not itself create intrinsic utility.

• Blockstream: The book presents the company’s relationship with influential Core developers and its interest in off-chain/secondary-layer infrastructure as a serious conflict of incentives. That does not prove bribery or deliberate sabotage, but the governance structure permitted actors with potentially conflicting incentives to exercise enormous influence.

• Censorship: r/Bitcoin, BitcoinTalk and other important information channels became part of the struggle. Control over discourse mattered almost as much as control over code.

• Developer consensus: Decentralized consensus at the blockchain level does not necessarily produce decentralized governance at the human level.

• Bitcoin XT / alternative implementations: Attempts to escape Core’s preferred scaling path demonstrate how difficult meaningful software competition can become once one implementation acquires overwhelming legitimacy and network effects.

• SegWit / SegWit2x / New York Agreement: The failed compromises show that miners, businesses, developers and users possessed different kinds of power—and that nominally broad industry support did not necessarily translate into the ability to change Bitcoin Core.

• Bitcoin Cash: BCH preserved much more of the inexpensive, high-capacity electronic-cash vision, but technical suitability isn’t sufficient. Its weak adoption relative to BTC is itself evidence that utility without network effects also struggles to generate value.

Big Ideas

1. Utility comes before sustainable monetary value.

My most important takeaway is stronger than the book’s simple “cash versus digital gold” distinction: a store of value ultimately derives its value from usefulness. Scarcity can support value, but scarcity alone doesn’t explain why something should remain valuable. Bitcoin’s revolutionary proposition was that people could actually use it as permissionless money. Reducing that usefulness substantially weakens the fundamental case for BTC, even if speculation and network effects sustain a very high market price.

2. Decentralized technology does not guarantee decentralized governance.

A blockchain can have decentralized miners and nodes while still developing concentrated control elsewhere. Repository maintainers, software implementations, developers, communication channels and social legitimacy can become de facto governance institutions.

3. The social layer may be as important as the consensus layer.

Who controls the code repository? Who decides which changes are legitimate? Who controls the dominant forums? Who determines which implementation gets called “Bitcoin”? These questions can matter as much as the formal consensus mechanism.

4. Incentives matter more than stated intentions.

Blockstream’s role is troubling even without assuming corruption. If influential developers have relationships with businesses whose products become more valuable when base-layer capacity remains scarce, that creates an obvious governance problem. A robust system should not require participants to trust that conflicted actors will always behave impartially.

5. Censorship can capture an ostensibly open system.

Open-source code does not guarantee an open marketplace of ideas. If the principal information channels can suppress competing implementations and redefine what constitutes the legitimate project, decentralized source code alone provides surprisingly little protection.

6. Technology without adoption is also insufficient.

BCH provides the counterexample. Even if its design better preserves Bitcoin’s original electronic-cash objective, insufficient adoption and network effects undermine its economic value. The lesson isn’t simply “big blocks good.” It is that successful blockchains require useful technology, sound governance and actual adoption.

Why It Matters

This book materially changed how I evaluate cryptocurrency.

I now put much greater weight on the chain:

utility → adoption → sustainable value

rather than assuming price, scarcity or technological elegance independently creates durable value.

It significantly reduced my assessment of BTC’s ultimate value because I no longer find “digital gold” by itself a sufficiently compelling end state for what was originally such a revolutionary technology.

It also changed how I look at other blockchains. BCH is technologically interesting as electronic cash, but its limited adoption weakens the investment case. My assessment of Polkadot declined, Algorand improved, and Cardano declined as I applied the same combination of utility, adoption, governance and incentive analysis.

The broader lesson is to ask of every blockchain: What economically useful thing does this system actually do, who controls its evolution, what incentives do those people face, and are people genuinely using it?

What the Book Got Right

The strongest achievement is turning the block-size war from an obscure historical argument into a case study in governance.

It makes clear why transaction capacity wasn’t merely a technical setting. Block size affected fees, usability, decentralization, development priorities and ultimately Bitcoin’s identity.

The discussion of governance capture is particularly valuable. Cryptocurrency rhetoric often treats “decentralization” as a binary property determined by protocol architecture. The book demonstrates why that is inadequate. Development teams, repositories, communication platforms and social consensus can create centralized power outside the formal protocol.

The book also provides valuable historical depth. I knew the broad story of Bitcoin but not the extent of the internal struggle over what Bitcoin was supposed to become. Understanding that history changes how BTC’s present form should be interpreted.

What Has Aged Less Well

Surprisingly little of the central argument has obviously aged badly for me.

BTC adoption has continued to emphasize investment, institutional ownership and store-of-value narratives far more than everyday payment utility. That development is consistent with the transformation described in the book rather than contradicting it.

However, the book’s sympathy toward BCH needs to be judged against BCH’s own limited adoption. Preserving the original design philosophy doesn’t automatically create economic relevance. If usefulness requires actual users, BCH faces the opposite side of the same problem.

One major future risk that receives insufficient attention is quantum computing. In particular, sufficiently capable quantum systems could eventually threaten exposed Bitcoin public keys and potentially vulnerable early wallets, including Satoshi-era holdings. That omission isn’t especially damaging to a book principally concerned with Bitcoin’s past, but it matters when extrapolating its arguments into Bitcoin’s long-term future.

Strong Quotes / Ideas Worth Remembering

Rather than particular wording, the concepts worth retaining are:

• Bitcoin was supposed to be peer-to-peer electronic cash, not merely an appreciating asset.

• The block-size limit became a governance mechanism, not merely an engineering parameter.

• Control of the dominant implementation can become control of the protocol’s practical direction.

• Control of information can be as important as control of software.

• A system can be decentralized technically while remaining centralized socially.

• Scarcity alone isn’t sufficient. Sustainable value ultimately requires utility and adoption.

Personal Resonance

I really liked this book and recommended it to several friends.

Its importance goes well beyond settling an old argument about Bitcoin. It supplied a much richer framework for thinking about what makes any blockchain valuable.

The most important change in my thinking is that technological capability, token scarcity and market capitalization aren’t enough. A blockchain has to provide useful economic functionality, achieve genuine adoption, maintain governance resistant to capture, and align the incentives of the people controlling its development with those of its users.

That framework has materially changed my assessment not only of BTC and BCH, but of projects such as Cardano, Polkadot and Algorand.

Next Steps

• Read a strong account of the block-size war from the small-block/Core perspective and compare its factual chronology against Ver and Patterson’s account.

• Separate three questions that are too easily conflated: Was BTC diverted from Satoshi’s intended trajectory? Was the small-block architecture technically inferior? Does that necessarily imply BCH should have succeeded?

• Continue applying the utility → adoption → sustainable-value framework when evaluating blockchain investments.

• Pay particular attention to hidden governance concentration: repository control, funding sources, developer incentives, foundations, major infrastructure providers and control over information channels.

• Revisit BTC’s long-term thesis as quantum-resistant migration becomes a practical rather than theoretical problem.

The Thing to Remember

Bitcoin’s most important vulnerability may never have been its cryptography. It was governance.

A system designed to eliminate trusted intermediaries still depended on humans to maintain its software, control its information channels and determine which version of “Bitcoin” the world recognized. Hijacking Bitcoin argues that those social choke points allowed a small group to redirect an extraordinarily promising peer-to-peer cash system toward something fundamentally different.

Whether every allegation in the book is ultimately correct is less important to me than the lesson it exposed: decentralization is meaningless if you look only at the blockchain and ignore who controls the code, information, incentives and adoption around it.

And ultimately, value requires usefulness. A cryptocurrency that stops solving an important economic problem cannot indefinitely substitute scarcity and narrative for utility.

(Written with assistance from ChatGPT)

[Al Beard]

A must read for crypto users

Although some if this book was,A bit over my head, I learned a lot about now crypto operates, and more specifically how Bitcoin (BTC) is not the answer to worldwide digital currency. Very well researched, and well written.

[Inga]

Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC by Roger Ver explores the complex history and evolution of Bitcoin, focusing on how it has been manipulated and "hijacked" by various actors over time. Roger Ver begins by tracing Bitcoin's origins as a decentralized currency aimed at financial freedom but reveals how its growth led to centralization and commercialization. The book highlights the environmental impact, volatility, and market manipulation that have affected Bitcoin, often distancing it from its original vision. Antonopoulos offers a balanced perspective, acknowledging Bitcoin’s evolution’s potential and challenges. He also examines the sociopolitical implications of Bitcoin, encouraging readers to consider its broader impact on privacy, government regulation, and economic freedom. While informative, the book's focus on Bitcoin’s shortcomings may leave some readers seeking more solutions or hope for the cryptocurrency’s future.

[Alex Gartner]

While the author is clearly incredibly BTH bias, this makes for a very interesting and educational read

[Tyson Gaylord]

Great easy to understand language for understanding Bitcoin

[Bryan]

Good stuff, nice trip down memory lane, big fan of Roger, will probably read this again.

[Frode]

Roger Ver provides an interesting look at the history of Bitcoin. He speaks from some experience having been involved with the project as an investor and evangelist for it although not a programmer. It is his contention that Satoshi’s original vision was subverted by some core programmers. The reasons are speculative: personal gain, outside influencers, it’s not public knowledge.

The book has three parts. The first portion talks about the original design of bitcoin and what it was supposed to do. The second part of the book reveals how the takeover and change of vision took place. The final series of chapters talk about how the original vision is still alive and how it might be taken back.

Roger Ver is keen on the original vision of bitcoin as a peer-to-peer monetary exchange vehicle that was to be cheap, fast, and reliable. Bitcoin Core, the current popular version of Bitcoin, doesn’t follow suit with the three characteristics above. He contends it was derailed purposely and makes elaborate use of quotes from various forums and articles to make his point.

At the end of the book, he warns that the technology can be used for good or ill. The original version would have given the world more freedom and prosperity. The existing version does not and can be easily used to track anyone’s monetary transactions, thus, loss of privacy and possible retaliation for using one’s money for whatever the powers in control are unhappy with. Think of the truckers and their supporters in Canada: frozen bank accounts and harassment.

It is a book worth reading as it uncovers things of which most people are totally unaware.

[Kasparas]

What I've gathered from this book is that when creating a decentralized currency, regardless of the technological marvels it can support, its value is almost exclusively dependent on networking effects.

You could have a tax-free, anonymous, instantaneous transaction system, but it's worthless if no one is using it.

So, when conditions are set up like that, the only chance for your currency to become valuable is not to pursue technological innovation, but to engage in marketing wars. I use 'wars' because the currency market is crowded, and the only way to get a foothold or maintain dominance is through spreading disinformation, smearing, personal attacks, and the like.

In software, when someone forks a popular project, no one bats an eye. In the world of cryptocurrencies, that's considered treason. This is where misaligned incentives lead you.

The book was alright. It was a bit one-sided, but nowhere near as much as 'The Bitcoin Standard.' Although, I wish that the arguments against big blocks had been explored more thoroughly.

[Bitcoin King]

I found Hijacking Bitcoin to be a compelling and enlightening read. It offered me a fresh perspective on the author, Roger Ver. While I was aware of his role as an early investor and prominent advocate for Bitcoin, as well as his later involvement in founding Bitcoin Cash, I hadn’t fully grasped the nuances or the events that precipitated the split until now.

The book presents Roger Ver’s account in a way that feels credible and thought-provoking. While I acknowledge that there are multiple sides to any story, his perspective is persuasive, and it has motivated me to explore the subject further. Notably, learning that Ver faced significant legal challenges—such as allegations of tax evasion and the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence—shortly after this book's release only reinforces the importance of considering his narrative more closely.

Overall, Hijacking Bitcoin is a fascinating exploration of both the history and the potential future of Bitcoin. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in gaining deeper insights into the cryptocurrency world and its key players.

[Kaan Cetin]

The whole thesis of big blockers are built on a fallacy: an emergent money would need to become medium of exchange first, and then store of value.

History and basic logic proves opposite: only if a sufficiently large number of people holds the money as SoV, then it would be demamnded by sellers and it would become a MoE.

[Eric M]

I am not knowledable of the deep code workings of bitcoin, but the story is well put together in sequence, covers some of the back room stories, as well as some theoretical things that may have occured.

[NG Yabili]

VERY informative book. The kind that must be read by anyone seeking a better insight into digital cash

[Drew MacBain]

Angry little man seething

[Spellbind Consensus]

**Overview**
The book explores the journey of Bitcoin (BTC) from its inception as a decentralized, peer-to-peer digital currency to what the author argues is a hijacked project. It details the technological, social, and political shifts that transformed Bitcoin’s direction, emphasizing the power struggles, external influences, and key events that shaped its evolution.

**Key Themes and Insights**

* Bitcoin was launched with the intention of being a decentralized, censorship-resistant, global form of digital cash, free from central authorities.
* Early adopters and developers were aligned with the ethos of openness, decentralization, and the right to privacy.
* Over time, influential individuals, organizations, and financial interests started to shape Bitcoin’s trajectory, leading to centralization of development and influence.
* Block size debates and protocol wars created deep divisions within the community, leading to significant forks such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
* Financialization of Bitcoin (introduction of futures, ETFs, and custodial services) introduced Wall Street interests, arguably compromising the original vision.
* Increasing regulatory scrutiny and compliance requirements influenced protocol development, with developers and companies accommodating external pressure.
* Corporate and institutional adoption, while growing Bitcoin’s market cap, may have diluted its founding principles and shifted priorities away from individual empowerment.
* The community’s culture shifted from cypherpunk ideals to a more investment-focused and profit-driven mindset.
* Some believe core technological decisions have prioritized stability and institutional comfort over innovation and accessibility.

**Actionable Ideas**

* Engage in community education to revive and spread the original ethos of decentralization and censorship resistance.
* Support and contribute to open-source projects that maintain peer-to-peer functionality and user sovereignty.
* Promote the use of non-custodial wallets and decentralized exchanges to reduce reliance on centralized entities.
* Participate in discussions and governance processes to advocate for greater transparency and inclusivity in development decisions.
* Encourage newcomers to learn about Bitcoin’s history and foundational principles, ensuring they understand both technical and ideological aspects.
* Consider diversifying involvement in various cryptocurrency projects that align more closely with decentralization and freedom, rather than focusing solely on BTC.
* Stay vigilant about the impacts of regulatory changes and advocate for balanced policies that protect privacy and autonomy.
* Foster local and global grassroots initiatives that utilize Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for real-world, peer-to-peer use cases rather than just speculation.
* Regularly evaluate the platforms, wallets, and services you use, favoring those that uphold user privacy, security, and independence.

**Practical Steps for Individuals**

* Learn how to run a Bitcoin node to contribute to network decentralization.
* Use privacy-preserving tools and techniques, such as CoinJoin and privacy-focused wallets.
* Support and donate to independent developers and advocacy groups working toward Bitcoin’s founding ideals.
* Organize or join local meetups to foster discussion and education around decentralized technologies.
* Practice self-custody of your digital assets and understand the risks associated with third-party custodians.

[Stephen Wellbow]

I'll say I enjoyed this one thoroughly on its own merits, but am unsure if I have the tool-set to properly criticize the author's narrative. I'd assume there was at least some bias due to his position as an early adopter and advocate for Bitcoin as an everyday transaction medium, but having been around crypto for 10+ years it also feels like the "vibe" or public perception of the crypto space reflects his positions as well. Maybe that's just confirmation bias on my part? I'd be open to reading some competing perspectives.

As for what was missing: I know it's "Hijacking Bitcoin", I would've liked to have seen more discussion of other cryptocurrencies and how they fit into addressing Bitcoin's shortcomings or drawbacks, and I would've liked to see more discussion (speculation?) of "why" BitCoin Core was steered in such a seemingly counterintuitive direction by the core devs throughout the latter part of the 2010s. The nod to Blockstream was tantalizing, but it's also easy to envision how geopolitics, large crime groups with interests in Bitcoin as a method of laundering/transacting, etc. would also weigh on the devs and their subsequent decisions Either way, it's a great book, check it out!

[Marius]

4⭐️

Roger Ver presents the story of the Bitcoin “blocksize war” from the perspective of the losing side. I would say this is highly educational.

While the right bitcoin implementation maybe is not easy to figure out, he has few very good points to make. I am going to list, in my opinion, the most important one:

Bitcoin was designed to replace the fiat payment system, to replace money at scale. This is something that has not been achieved now 15 years after its creation. And to claim that bitcoin was created to become “store of value” without being able to use it for payments in the daily life is ridiculous.

On the other hand the shit show that finally led to the Bitcoin Cash fork gave the miners and the users all the reasons to follow Bitcoin Core. It was the safe path to follow.

Like in the case of the big religions the split on Bitcoin doctrine was meant to happen since its creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, is not around anymore. The blocksize war was a clash of philosophies where the incumbent devs won.

[Ryan]

Even though I was an early adopter of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, I did not know the history in this book, what Ver calls the "civil war." For example, I never knew why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked off from BTC. Now I do.

Ver's arguments for bigger block sizes make a lot of sense, and they're in line with Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin. Today, BTC is hamstrung by small block sizes, so fees are high and it cannot be used as digital cash.

I have a friend who says I should look into the arguments from "the other side," and I'm open to hearing them. But from my perspective, there were financial incentives to limit block sizes so that BTC became an asset that goes up in value vs. becoming stable digital cash with super low fees.

The main reason I gave this three stars instead of four or five is because there's some inside baseball and technical info that went over my head. Probably relevant to miners and people deep into crypto, but not so much to me.

[Leo]

For someone who has never been deeply involved in cryptocurrencies, this is a fascinating and eye-opening story to read.

For once, I only now understand why bitcoin generated so much excitement at the outset. When I looked at it in 2018, it looked to me like a clunky system with limited utility, that runs primarily on people hoping it'd be their x100 investment. Little did I know that wasn't how it was meant to be.

It's also a cautionary tale that no matter how radically decentralised the technology, there's always a human element somewhere. That a few people with power and resources, who know what they want and are not afraid to use their resources, can overwhelm the whole community of people who are less organised.

The book isn't very technical, although a basic understanding of bitcoin technology would be beneficial.