If it is not a conspiracy, why is Blockstream attempting to cripple Bitcoin?

"Truth is stranger than fiction," says Conspirophile. According to this "reality," the CIA, Bildeberg Group, or both are working together to undermine Bitcoin by disguising their activities under the guise of Blockstream.

Conspiracy theories, movies, books, and other works of fiction all tell the same story, but the truth shouldn't be one of them. Conspiracy theories about the CIA and the Bilderberg Group before Bitcoin. For some reason, the decision between the CIA and Bildeberg doesn't seem the most outlandish. Create new antagonists for your story.

An interesting or amazing story doesn't necessitate that it tell the truth. It's either discovered or not.

What follows is an explanation of the actual nature of the Blockstream Conspiracy, since that is what it is.

In the first place, I don't think anyone, including the CIA and Bildeberg Group, puts much effort into maintaining global economic balance. There is no doubt in my mind that these and other groups are motivated by capitalism, nationalism, and other ideologies. They have a healthy sense of rivalry. Everyone is trying to outdo them. More.

There is a good chance that the CIA has held discussions on Bitcoin in fluorescent-lit conference rooms. How can we use this to further US dominance and advance our own interests? "How can we stop this so nothing changes?" was not the question. In the vein of Iran/Contra, I'm sure the CIA uses Bitcoin to conduct covert operations.

AXA Ventures, the alleged Bildeberg tool, did not invest in Blockstream to have nothing more than they have now, as I believe they would. Because everyone else does, AXA Ventures pumped money into the company. To make a fortune for themselves and their investors.

There is no need to scrutinize anyone's motives for studying or investing in Bitcoin. With each new paradigm, everyone acts in their own self-interest, whether or not they take advantage of new opportunities. Like any other IT company, Blockstream may expand and adapt. I see them as a business that seeks to succeed and make money, just like any other.

By capping blocks at 1 megabyte, Blockstream and "Core" developers have damaged Bitcoin. There has been a debate over block size since 2011. Second-layer solutions were suggested at some point, although I'm not sure when. As a miner, you may make a lot of money via side chains. Technical rather than economic issues may have dominated the early debates.

Block size should be limited, and this is a fair point to ask. The vast majority of inquiries may be answered rationally. There's nothing wrong with asking questions and considering different options.

My guess is that in 2021 we'll have hardware that can manage chunks as large as 8 megabytes or 32 megabytes. In my head, I don't know what to say. It's possible that Moore's Law will fail to hold as expected. Even if I'm in favor of Bitcoin Cash in the block size debate, it would be arrogant of me to assume that I'm always right. As naive as claiming that everyone in 2011 should have known everything.

Humans, I believe, came up with this on their own. In the beginning, it says, "Block size may be a problem." There may be a second-layer remedy if it's a real issue.

If the second layer of the business takes off, "someone" figures out, "it could be profitable." There are investors out there who are aware of this and think that "a second layer is required."

"The second layer is needed" may just be a half-truth at this time. Instead of keeping investors in the dark, it's preferable to make everything clear and get the money. I've already made a purchase. I started a small business in Tokyo during the dot-com boom of 2000 and raised $1 million in funding. Over the course of its existence, Blockstream has amassed about $300 million in funding. Investors are nothing new to me.

Investors don't just hand you cash and tell you to "do your thing," as I've discovered. They keep a close eye on you. There are usually fail safes, incentives and other procedures in place to ensure that you don't take the money and flee to a beach where there are no extradition treaties. You can't just walk into a bank and walk out with a million dollars. For the most part, stock options do not become fully vested until particular goals have been completed, although other benefits, such as CEO status, voting rights on the board of directors, and remuneration, may also be included.

Success is being pushed to the limit. Your investment must be "10X"ed. Give the investor a ten-fold return on their investment. In some cases, your home, family's safety, and even your own self-worth may be in jeopardy. You begin to take ownership of the people you hire, as well as the lives of their loved ones.

Faith in "second layers" becomes a faith on which reputations, jobs, and lives depend. You can't take back what once seemed like something you could change and pivot when the time came. Now, however, it feels like something that you can't retract without pitchforks and torchlight. The second layer solution isn't going to work if you know that. How about you fire everyone and inform your investors that they wasted their money investing in your business? Sorry, but we'll have to go, okay??"

Also, aspirations and aspirations. What if Bitcoin gets better with additional layers? In the event that I were employed by Blockstream, I'd have a look at the position. At the very least, it's a possibility for Bitcoin's future development. As a corporation at the hub of a global currency, the benefits are nearly inconceivable. They pale in comparison to Facebook and Google's wealth.

Pressure and damnation are on the other side of the coin for each side. Since it gets to the point, this quote has reminded me of one I've used before. "It's impossible to get a man to understand when his pay depends on it," said Upton Sinclair. This is something I've witnessed firsthand. Most people will accept any explanation for their financial situation as true.

Those working on bitcoin's short blocks and second layers, such as Core devs and Blockstream, have my complete confidence that they are doing the correct thing.

I've heard it said that Blockstream operates solely for the purpose of profiting from its second-layer services. Because of this, it appears as if the block size was deliberately reduced to accommodate their operations. That's a mistake. Blockstream, in my opinion, needs additional layers to accomplish their goals. Over time, everyone involved grew to feel that what they're doing is logical. Due to investment and corporate pressure, "maybe we need second layers!" was converted into "we need second levels!"

Telling them it's because their pay depends on it will backfire on them. Large blocks, or no second levels, may have been your presumptive wager. Both of these statements could be correct.

Conspirophiles refuse to acknowledge that there is merit to all sides of the block size debate. People on either side may believe the other is promoting fear mongering and misinformation by distorting the truth and engaging in troll tactics. A person who is deceitful is implying that they are dishonest and underhanded, which is a bad sign.

Every conflict is fought by those who are willing to go to any lengths in order to succeed. Underhanded methods are used by any party depending on how awful they believe their rivals are. The more of an existential threat your opponent is, the less leniency you show them.

Regardless of their size, both little and large blockers believe that their existence is a necessity. Because everyone is so convinced that what they believe is objectively true, they can't envision the other side being honest, therefore they tend to view the other as a criminal in their intent.

Smear campaigns and truthful advertising can be used by both sides to gain an advantage in the market for goods and services. If you want to change your mind, you have to run against a brick wall of reality. Due to a technical breakdown, hostile attack, or diminishing market, someone's blockchain is in turmoil.

It's unlikely that "losers" will say, "Wow, I was so wrong!" if Liquid, Lightning, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash or anyone else falls and burns. Inexperienced screenwriters frequently produce subpar work in their films. Those who believe Bitcoin and Lightning are doomed to fail will claim that its opponents sabotaged them. It's expected that Bitcoin Cash supporters would do the same thing.

Blockstream's "conspiracy," I suppose. Success promises and failure fears lead people into positions of power.

There are witnesses out there who can shed light on what transpired. Along the way, they established Blockstream and talked with investors such as AXA Ventures. They'd chuckle if they saw this because I'm so obviously wrong.

If I'm correct, would they understand that they were enthralled by the potential success of their own projects? No, I'm not blinded by my own lenses. Maybe. There is no such thing as an unbiased viewpoint.

It's better to accept the reality, whatever it is, because it's more complex and relatable than an X-Files-style conspiracy theory.