That completely mis-characterizes Maxwell and Blockstream&#x27;s position. It isn&#x27;t that &quot;the rules are the rules and we got to live with them.&quot; Rather larger, slower to validate, slower to relay blocks creates centralization pressures, and centralization destroys the user protections at the heart of Bitcoin&#x27;s value proposition.<p>Blockstream has no position on the block size debate, other than supporting the consensus building process (whatever the outcome might be). Blockstream&#x27;s business model does not depend in any way shape or form on small blocks. That is pure FUD. In fact, small blocks are a hindrance to things like sidechains, which generally use much larger transactions for the two-way peg smart contracts. Some of the risks called out in the sidechains whitepaper are that Bitcoin blocks might be too small to contain a return peg, or that full blocks will make it difficult to get a fraud proof on chain before the expiry.<p>Everyone stands to benefit from larger blocks, but only so long as the network remains decentralized. The debate is over where to draw that line.<p>(Disclaimer: I&#x27;m a co-founder of Blockstream.)