Sounds like you know some pretty intimate details, any more?
Interesting how they didn't actually hedge their bets by investing in Blockstream also, any info for us about that, knight22?
Bank managers have very little understanding on the technical functioning of bitcoin and where this technology is heading. The fact that they didnt invest in Blockstream only demonstrate that (thank God). Very few have hedge their bets with some bitcoin comapny but no more. Of course they have little interest of deeper understanding because we all know this technology can render their very lucrative business model into an almost obsolete one. However, keeping small blocks is a great way to push users into potential proprietary off-chain systems controlled by banks which can be used for fractional reserve, cooking books and all the great things they love doing. On the other hand allowing people to directly use the blockchain is a bigger threat to their business model.
So Goldman don't have a clue what they're doing, and you support the companies they invested in? Just a massive coincidence that dominant financial players only invested in companies that are now pushing BIP101?
I suppose it's also just a massive coincidence that you and the rest of your cohort all support BIP101 only, and have never entertained the various other ways of solving the problem. Sure.
bitcoin company needs scalability of the blockchain
itself for obvious reasons. Banks investing in some of them is irrelevant. Bitcoin is supposed to work with or without bad actors.
Banking investment is not irrelevant when the design proposals that banking investment backs have a direct centralising effect on the network.
You and your crew have zero credible arguments when it comes to this debate, but you keep repeating the same old nonsense over and over again, and it's all to serve the agenda of a bunch of highly intelligent psychopaths.
We do not want what you are selling, and so the free market ideology tells us: leave, peacefully. Go.