But getting to the real crux here, I see both sides of the blocksize argument. But still it should be made clear, isn't this Amanda from DASH? If so, she has her own conflict of interest in damning Bitcoin.
Yes she is a DASH pumper. But I guess erryone in the crypto business has a preference. So I don't think what she says is absolutely wrong just because she hypes DASH.
Anyway,
Her argument (after watching more) is that Blockstream is paying the devs and they are funded by outside interests. But there are over 100 core devs, right? So unless there is a massive case of groupthink, the code should speak for itself as anyone with the skill can review it. It would follow that if lead core devs were being 'turned', a migration away from Core would ensue.
I sympathize with Big Blockers. For those running a business and conducting multiple transactions frequently, rising fees are a big negative. The LN solution would enable scaling but pay fees to certain groups which can be interpreted as not being in line with Satoshi's vision.
Maybe that is right. Or maybe as the system matures it morphs into a more comp sci coder led tool than anarcho-cap one and this is Ver losing relevance as the ecosystem outgrows the need for an evangelist? I don't know.
I'm secretly hoping that the Core devs are just milking BlockStream dry of funds and that they never intended SegWit to be actually activated. They deliberately made it as tough to get activated as possible so that the good guys would eventually win, and they'd get paid while buying cheap BTC with their massive salaries paid by the Blockstream banksters. Yeah, that would be great.
