Yeah, alright The Guardian, except that would have been an honest presentation of this story 9 months ago when the same Guardian "news"paper published an article that was all but a glowing endorsement of shiny-happy-clappy person Gavin Andresen and his fork de jour. Why should anyone take this bullshit outlet seriously when they've already demonstrated whose side they're on: corporate banksterism
("but The Guardian hates the horrible nasty bankers, you're wrong!". Well, the appearance of this back-tracking story is the evidence that The Guardian editorial team had a chance to make a real difference, and they manifestly chose the wrong side of history)