it hard to argue with fact which is all that was presented in the top portionof the article.. so you choose to attempt to discredit the author or person of an article this is known as an ad hominem attack. It’s part of the logical fallacies making your comment meaningless.
thanks for stopping by though.
Based on the user reaction we’ve had here , reddit and twitter. these things were not well known. the narrative thats being sold is that bitcoin was taken over by a corporation is just not true. The leading contributors have 0 relations with any corporate body and are paid by MIT grants.
Stand corrected on sipa. Thats not what the api returns for that commit btw as we went back to 2013. Well amend the story to include sipa w/ total commits done.
What Andersen changed was the command line argue for default_block_size. What your discussing through out the article is max_block_size which has been 1MB since Jul 14, 2010
Exaggerated narrative by people who werent involved. Again this article wasnt about censorship or social impact. It was about proveable work to bitcoin repo and bips. The fact that theuve contributed very little on scale vs the body of work and no member od blockstream has commit/merge right really speaks to the point.