I can understand this sentiment, but i have a more nuanced theory. Bitcoin was a "schrodinger's tech" much like everything else that has developed since the turn of the millenium.
By this, what I mean is that both the white hats and black hats allowed the creation of Bitcoin for different reasons. BHs definitely needed a new vehicle to hide their financial crimes after the 2008 Fed money printers were turned on to full speed. The timing of the Bitcoin whitepaper is not a coincidence.
WHs on the other hand realised that the blockchain provides the best way to track criminal activity and allowed this to hit the society, because they knew that it would provide the taste for a "freedom currency", becoming especially crucial in the final stages of Awakening (as in now).
BHs on the other hand made sure that Bitcoin implementation ended up becoming clunky and inefficient, so that it could never actually become the "freedom currency" and give us freedom.
WHs were perfectly fine with this, because the taste of freedom is good enough. Once people hunger for something, even if its yanked away, they will create it for themselves in future.
Over all, Bitcoin has shown us the dream of the future - what a really free free-market society would look like, but at the same time given the BHs the false sense of security that seems to be so prevalent everywhere as part of this Devolution plan.
BHs on the other hand made sure that Bitcoin implementation ended up becoming clunky and inefficient, so that it could never actually become the "freedom currency" and give us freedom.
The way this happened was with Satoshi inserting the 1MB per block limit. It was always meant to be removed but after Satoshi left the project and it was commandeered by Blockstream, they made sure to cement it in permanently to create artificial scarcity so it couldn't scale.
It's like if we talking about the printing press, and if back then they said "we have to limit all printing presses so that no book can be longer than 100 pages, because if books are longer than 100 pages, nobody would be able to afford to print their own books!"
Good analogy, but I have always found it a bit difficult to understand how people fell for a 1MB limit in 2010 - when computational scarcity was already a thing of the past. Its not like they couldnt foresee that it would become a bottleneck soon down the road.
At the time Bitcoin was just a few people running the software on consumer laptops and desktops which was not providing much hashpower. Satoshi wanted to prevent potential bad actors from renting out a massive server farm to spam attack the network with 1GB blocks which would have basically stopped Bitcoin dead in its tracks in those early days.
Satoshi left instructions for how to gradually increase and eventually remove the limit altogether, but Blockstream insisted on making it permanent. Bitcoin Cash is now at a 32MB limit and will be changing to dynamic block limits later this year.
If I remember correctly, wasnt there a point where a huge transaction was in the queue that was going to grind the whole Bitcoin to a halt which forced them to make the change quickly? Or was that something else unrelated to block size?
I can understand this sentiment, but i have a more nuanced theory. Bitcoin was a "schrodinger's tech" much like everything else that has developed since the turn of the millenium.
By this, what I mean is that both the white hats and black hats allowed the creation of Bitcoin for different reasons. BHs definitely needed a new vehicle to hide their financial crimes after the 2008 Fed money printers were turned on to full speed. The timing of the Bitcoin whitepaper is not a coincidence.
WHs on the other hand realised that the blockchain provides the best way to track criminal activity and allowed this to hit the society, because they knew that it would provide the taste for a "freedom currency", becoming especially crucial in the final stages of Awakening (as in now).
BHs on the other hand made sure that Bitcoin implementation ended up becoming clunky and inefficient, so that it could never actually become the "freedom currency" and give us freedom.
WHs were perfectly fine with this, because the taste of freedom is good enough. Once people hunger for something, even if its yanked away, they will create it for themselves in future.
Over all, Bitcoin has shown us the dream of the future - what a really free free-market society would look like, but at the same time given the BHs the false sense of security that seems to be so prevalent everywhere as part of this Devolution plan.
The way this happened was with Satoshi inserting the 1MB per block limit. It was always meant to be removed but after Satoshi left the project and it was commandeered by Blockstream, they made sure to cement it in permanently to create artificial scarcity so it couldn't scale.
It's like if we talking about the printing press, and if back then they said "we have to limit all printing presses so that no book can be longer than 100 pages, because if books are longer than 100 pages, nobody would be able to afford to print their own books!"
Good analogy, but I have always found it a bit difficult to understand how people fell for a 1MB limit in 2010 - when computational scarcity was already a thing of the past. Its not like they couldnt foresee that it would become a bottleneck soon down the road.
At the time Bitcoin was just a few people running the software on consumer laptops and desktops which was not providing much hashpower. Satoshi wanted to prevent potential bad actors from renting out a massive server farm to spam attack the network with 1GB blocks which would have basically stopped Bitcoin dead in its tracks in those early days.
Satoshi left instructions for how to gradually increase and eventually remove the limit altogether, but Blockstream insisted on making it permanent. Bitcoin Cash is now at a 32MB limit and will be changing to dynamic block limits later this year.
If I remember correctly, wasnt there a point where a huge transaction was in the queue that was going to grind the whole Bitcoin to a halt which forced them to make the change quickly? Or was that something else unrelated to block size?