I can see why corporate interests are a concern in a decentralised and open-source platform, but I honestly think people take it too far sometimes. If developers are only coding something because a company is paying them to, that would indeed present a conflict of interests. However, if developers are producing code that they personally believe will be beneficial to Bitcoin and also happen to be receiving an income from a company to continue their work, that's an entirely different matter. I'm not convinced that any one company has a "grasp" on Bitcoin.
gmax, sipa, and rustyrussels involvement in bitcoin was for the corporate benefit of fitting in code purely for the utility of other networks like liquid and LN for financial gain of custodial transfer services.
as for your out dated idiotic rhetoric about 2mb base block centralising the network.. sorry but core implemented 4mb weight. so your foolish rants that 'data is bad' got aboished and debunked as soon as your celebrities you idolise actually implemented 4mb instead of 2mb
cant you atleast come up with something factual and relevant. you seem stuck in the 2016 excuses.
but continue with the insults. but it was fun teaching you how wrong you are. sorry but taking people off the network and making them custodian vault up with 'watchtower's will centralise more. than what 2mb base block would ever have done
to prove you are a centralist:
it was your own rhetoric that said you dont want users to buy things on bitcoin(no coffees).
it was your own rhetoric of you wanting it as a reserve currency, not a digital cash for the unbanked
it was your own rhetoric where you want people who dont like the centralist idea to fork off..
in short. you want bitcoin centralised
now grow up. you been called out many times over the years.
everyone knows now that you dont care about bitcoin as a digital cash for the unbanked