Quote from: Adrian-x on February 24, 2016, 10:56:13 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on February 24, 2016, 09:15:18 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 24, 2016, 07:59:17 PM

More BS:

Quote

" Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.
I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."~ maaku7

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

i guess the whole "blockstream conspiracy" is shown to be the total bull it always was ...

it's not a conspiracy its a conflict of interest. BS are designing systems that benefit from limited block size, they are now implementing feature in Core to achieve this goal.

ok, so you've dialed back on the "conspiracy" and doubled-down on "conflict of interest" ... now would it blow your mind too much if the "conflict of interest" was a misinterpretation of the fact that blockstream founders understood the technical limits of bitcoin before anyone else and decided to build a company knowing they had to build within those limitations?

and chumps like Brian Armstrong never understood the tech too deeply but knew he wanted to make mega-bucks and would do whatever it took?