Roger Ver and the Bitcoin Fork Wars

Few figures in the crypto space have been as polarising as Roger Ver. Once celebrated as “Bitcoin Jesus” for his early evangelism of digital cash, he later became “Bitcoin Judas” to those who saw him as a traitor to the original Bitcoin network. His book, Hijacking Bitcoin, tells his version of how Bitcoin was “stolen” by developers who prioritised digital gold over digital cash. But is Ver truly a martyr for Satoshi’s vision, or is he just another player in a game of power struggles and ideology?

The Idealist Who Became a Rebel

Roger Ver’s story is one of rebellion. His libertarian views, shaped by personal run-ins with the U.S. legal system, led him to embrace Bitcoin as a tool for financial freedom. Unlike many early adopters who saw Bitcoin as a speculative asset, Ver saw it as a revolutionary payment system. One that could bypass banks, governments, and financial gatekeepers.

This belief put him on a collision course with the Bitcoin Core (BTC) developers. As Bitcoin grew in popularity, its limitations became clear. The network became congested, transaction fees soared, and confirmation times stretched. Ver and the so-called “big blockers” argued that increasing the block size was the logical solution. But the Bitcoin Core developers resisted, fearing that larger blocks would lead to centralisation by making it harder for regular users to run a node.

The result? The 2017 Bitcoin civil war and the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

Hijacking Bitcoin or Fixing It?

In Hijacking Bitcoin, Ver paints BTC’s developers as the villains. Ideologues who strangled Bitcoin’s ability to function as peer-to-peer cash. He claims that Bitcoin was hijacked by those who wanted to transform it into a “store of value” rather than a currency.

But there’s another way to look at it. While BTC did move towards the digital gold narrative, Bitcoin Cash didn’t exactly stick to the original script either. It, too, underwent changes that arguably strayed from Satoshi’s whitepaper. And, ironically, BCH itself suffered a split, leading to the creation of Bitcoin SV (BSV), which now claims to be the true Bitcoin.

So, was Bitcoin really hijacked? Or did Ver simply lose control of the narrative?

The Unintended Consequences of Forking

Ver’s belief in an unregulated, censorship-resistant financial system might be noble, but it has practical flaws. While Bitcoin’s transparency and traceability allow it to fit within legal frameworks, Ver has aligned himself with more radical, privacy-focused technologies. He has supported privacy coins like Monero, which provide anonymity but also enable illicit activity.

The reality is that for Bitcoin to achieve mainstream adoption, it cannot be an ungoverned Wild West. Regulation, compliance, and accountability are necessary for long-term success. This is where Ver’s vision clashes with the real-world needs of businesses and governments.

A Flawed Hero in a Divided Crypto World

Roger Ver is neither a saviour nor a villain, he is a product of Bitcoin’s chaotic evolution. He helped shape the early Bitcoin movement and introduced thousands to the concept of digital cash. But his unwillingness to compromise on decentralisation and regulation ultimately led to his fall from grace.

Now, as he faces legal troubles, tax evasion charges, and possible extradition, his influence in the crypto world is waning. Meanwhile, the battle over Bitcoin’s true purpose rages on. BTC remains the dominant brand, BCH fights for relevance, and BSV continues to claim it is the only true Bitcoin.

In the end, the question isn’t whether Bitcoin was hijacked. It’s whether any version of Bitcoin will ever truly fulfil Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision. And that, as history has shown, is up for debate.