But Bier and Ver's depictions of most of the deeper underlying are extremely different. To Bier, the small-block side is standing on behalf of users against small but powerful cabals of miners and exchanges trying to wrest control of the chain for their own benefit. Small blocks keep Bitcoin decentralized by making sure regular users can run nodes and verify the chain. To Ver, the big-block side is standing on behalf of users against small but powerful cabals of self-appointed high priests and VC-funded companies (namely, Blockstream) who profit from building the layer 2 solutions that the small-block roadmap necessitates. Large blocks keep Bitcoin decentralized by making sure users can continue to afford on-chain transactions without needing to depend on centralized layer-2 infrastructure.

The closest that I can see to the two sides even "agreeing on the terms of the debate" is that Bier's book accepts that many big blockers are well intentioned, even acknowledging that they have valid grievances regarding pro-small-block forum moderators censoring opposing views, but frequently criticizes the big block side for being incompetent, while Ver's book is more willing to ascribe malicious intent and even conspiracy theories to small blockers, but rarely criticizes their competence. This echoes a common political trope I have heard on quite a few occasions, that "the right thinks that the left is naive, the left thinks that the right is evil".