The “Big Blocks = PayPal” Argument Misses the Point

The standard argument I have heard from small-block supporters is that larger blocks lead to centralization, turning Bitcoin into “PayPal on-chain.” Even if we accept that premise for a moment (which is strongly disputed and addressed in Hijacking Bitcoin by Roger Ver), it still ignores a basic fact: most of the world doesn’t have PayPal.

Billions of people have little to no access to banking services at all. For them, “just use a bank” isn’t an option; fees are high, access is limited, and you’re expected to hand over half your life history just to open an account (apparently my mother’s maiden name is essential for processing payments).

So even if larger blocks increased centralization, the outcome would still be a net win for the majority of the global population. Cheap, on-chain transactions would allow people in developing countries to use Bitcoin for everyday payments instead of relying on expensive, exclusionary financial systems.

Bitcoin wasn’t created to be a settlement layer for people who already have Visa, PayPal, and five banking apps. It was meant to be peer-to-peer electronic cash. Optimizing it only for the already-banked defeats the purpose.

Big blocks aren’t about convenience for the West. They’re about access for everyone else.