Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here, someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.
This is what we call 'lying'.
Many of us have been trying to point out the truth for some time with frustrating results.
It is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and then being laughed at like you're crazy.
But eventually, reality catches up and it seems the tide is turning.
"Yeah we can't upgrade the blocksize because theres no consensus but we can write 5000
lines of code for Segwit and radically change the transaction structure."
I wonder what your metric for "radical" changes are and whether or not it is objectively defined or simply YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on the matter.
A lot of people are frustrated but its never seems to be the ones with the most knowledge and experience with the system or those that like to base their arguments on science and empirical evidence.
It might be your frustration and other's who hold the same attitude comes directly from your ignorance on the subject.
You don't need any literature to understand that if someone has 100s of millions invested he thinks real hard about what he will do.
I'm not sure who you are implying has invested or will invest 100's of millions. Nonetheless you have made an implication here but given no argument and so of course (consequently) no basis for an argument. Also you might not want to start technical and economic debates with "You don't need any literature to understand..." Its basically an admission of ignorance.