I’ll start right at the beginning. Bitcoin was born out of the desires of a libertarian that wanted to see change in the global finance system. A change that was not governed, or centrally controlled. A change that could break down the walls of banking systems, and artificially controlled monetary systems.

The concept was an idea. The creator, and inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, turned the idea into a reality, by coding and implanting the solution for which he had just released a white-paper for. The world now had its first true Peer to Peer electronic cash payment system, which allowed anyone to send a sum of value across the world, for literally zero fees.

Fast forward almost a decade, and the Bitcoin we have today, is stifled, congested, and unworkable for transactions that are too small in value. This is a result of the much discussed 1MB artificial blocksize limit.

When creator, and inventor Satoshi, handed over control of the source code repository and network alert key to Gavin Andresen, little did he/she (or they), know that this action would result in a snowball effect of a takeover bid by the corporate elites.

Founded in 2014, Bitcoin Core is funded by Blockstream, a technology company led by Back and Maxwell. The stance of the leadership of this company is that the blocksize must not increase under any condition. Nor is the topic of blocksize increase even open for discussion.

It is the ultimate irony that Bitcoin itself would become the subject of a centralized, censored, governed approach.

When transactions cost an average $1 USD, one can’t help but scratch their heads and think, where did we go wrong?

Capitalist and elitist attitudes know no boundaries in the interest of self preservation. Bitcoin is a threat, and the development team has been hijacked, and the original developers have over time, been weeded out to make way for a team of developers, bloggers, and social manipulators who have blinkers on, and are of one thought. The blocksize must not increase.

There are two fundamentally different but very related mindsets that are at play on the Blockstream end of the spectrum. First is the organisation heads, and those that fund Blockstream. It is no secret that AXA Strategic Ventures of the Bilderberg Group for instance has significantly helped fund millions of dollars into Blockstream. Blockstream’s $76m funding over two investment rounds was on the basis that it expands its Bitcoin code for commercial use, and that it produces a host of off-chain solutions, - some working on private chains, some on public, and some centralized solutions. By funding Bitcoin’s development on this level, it forces Bitcoin’s future down a centralized path (that is; activating Segwit for 2nd layer solutions), one that Blockstream would have more control over, and one which would be more closely aligned to commercial interests. The second mindset at Blockstream stems from the employees themselves, - where, it becomes a matter of survival. If Blockstream are not able to get their funding purpose into fruition (activating Segwit), then their organisation no longer serves the purpose of the elites, and will no longer be funded.

But the millions of dollars invested into Blockstream are no easy money either, and Blockstream’s dominance of the Bitcoin client will not go down easily, and certainly not without a fight.

Anyone heavily involved within Bitcoin circles is more than familiar with how ugly this fight is getting. Various forums will delete, or cloak your posts if it doesn’t meet Blockstream’s agenda, and at times an outright ban.

Over the last few months, Bitcoiners have watched Bitcoin Core’s dominance of the client of choice slowly diminishing, as miners become increasingly aware, and frustrated by the inaction on the blocksize increase. For example, the biggest mining pool, AntPool, has recently started to switch over to ‘Bitcoin Unlimited’, the main competition to Blockstream’s Core client. BU ofcourse, supports larger blocksize increases, and as its adoption increases, so do the ever growing, yet ever more desperate social manipulation tactics that are employed.

We have seen many methods of social trickery, but I am going to list the prime methods and offer examples:

1. Strategy of distraction

- The real problems the Bitcoin network faces right now are the growing fees, and the delayed payments due to the network congestion. Blockstream supporters will argue that you need to upgrade your wallet, and pay the appropriate fee to have your transaction processed. This is a classic distraction method which does not address the problem whatsoever. It instead places the user in an awkward position, believing they have done something wrong.

2. Create problems, then offer solutions

- Make no mistake, the 1MB limit was created. Satoshi may have placed it to begin with, but Satoshi also clearly stated that this limit should be increased as adoption of Bitcoin grows. By holding it back at 1MB, it ‘forces’ the problem, which in turn is used to push the “Segwit” agenda.

3. Degradation

- The quality of the network will continue to suffer. The fees aren’t rising in a linearpattern. No. They are exponentially growing, and soon will be matching western union transfer fees. This strategy is adopted by governments and revolutionists when looking to create a change in any socio-economic system.

4. Strategy of Differing

- “Painful but necessary”. We hear this mantra from Blockstream supporters all the time. “Rising fees are a byproduct” of Bitcoin’s success. Or perhaps to hear that these are the “teething issues of a growing network”. – In truth, the simple solution is right there in front of our eyes, and simply requires a tweak to one line of code.

5. Maintain intellectual superiority

- Core developers hold that they know what is best for Bitcoin because… well, after all they are great developers. But in the real world, rarely do developers ever, dictate what the users want, should have, or need. In any business or software eco-system, it is offcourse the users which drive special features, enhancements or otherwise. Developers may know how to code, but they are not economists, nor are they business owners that rely on Bitcoin for payments.

6. To replace “revolt” with guilt.

- In Blockstream’s opinion, anyone who supports Bitcoin Unlimited, or is pro blocksize increase, is stifling scalability, and is therefore accused of blocking Segwit. To the contrary, Segwit will offer a very mild blocksize increase, and will require a long time before it is not only activated, but also before its capacity increase can at all be realised. By then it would be beyond far too little, and too late. Bitcoin Unlimited, can resolve the situation now pending adoption.

7. Discard critical thinking as religious fervour.

- I can personally attest to being attacked as a Satoshi worshipping idiot simply for backing Satoshi’s white paper. “Satoshi isn’t God”, I was told. On countless times actually… When in truth, by holding to Satoshi’s vision, you are separating yourself from anything that is centralized in the first place. This libertarian view is the furthest point of any deity or governance over Bitcoin.

8. Threaten worst case scenarios

- Supporting Bitcoin Unlimited will create an Alt-Coin. This again assumes the general public understand nothing about Bitcoin, and comes from Blockstream maintaining their intellectual superiority. Bitcoin was developed, not to be governed by any entity. The market, and the people should always dictate its direction, not Blockstream, and certainly not any centrally governed entity. Bitcoin Unlimited will always follow the most popular Bitcoin chain. It will not force anything on anyone. If miners using Bitcoin Unlimited choose to mine bigger blocks, that is their choosing. If you were to look purely at the technical, Segwit is so radical to Bitcoin, that technically, it could be the very alt-coin in question. But let’s not stoop to that level.

Blockstream’s behaviour comes ultimately from a place of entitlement. By threatening that Bitcoin Unlimited will create an altcoin comes from a place where Blockstream believe they are the true developers, and keeper of the keys for Bitcoin. This thinking places Blockstream on par with Bitcoin, forcing the belief that without Blockstream there is no Bitcoin.

In the beginning, let it be stated that Bitcoin did not need an ounce of funding, and it came into fruition without any source of investment whatsoever. And suddenly it became a multibillion dollar market cap currency in a matter of a few years. And where there is money, there are companies out to get it. Ironically right after the 2013 bubble, Blockstream was born – in 2014, in fact.

At present Bitcoin Unlimted holds well over one quarter dominance of the hash rate, and Core’s dominion is crumbling. This alone has been achieved in less than half a year, not because Bitcoin Unlimited did anything drastic – in fact, its perfectly in-line with the original Bitcoin implementation. But rather, because Core developers were unwilling to compromise on the blocksize, and maliciously attacked, tried to silence, and ban anyone from having an opposing opinion.

I believe the tide is finally turning – but we are not there yet. The attacks will continue, and the attempts will get more desperate. Its important to remain vigilant, and address, particularly the new comers. 

Truly, you reap what you sow. The revolution will not be centralized.

Author:
Eli Afram (M.Sc.IT)
Developer & Analyst

Disclaimer: Graphs referenced from http://coin.dance