The Truth of the Blockstream Conspiracy Exposed!

10 255
Avatar for dave_gutteridge
2 years ago

In recent months, as I've been writing about the fundamentally skewed thinking of conspiracy paranoia that is pervasive in crypto communities, I've had plenty of people contact me, through and Reddit, telling me that I'm wrong and stupid for not being able to see the obvious workings of the grand conspiracy by Blockstream to destroy Bitcoin.

The fundamental premise of the Blockstream conspiracy is that they are deliberately making Bitcoin unusable so that it fails to become a legitimate world currency. This is because the-powers-that-be see Bitcoin as a threat to the traditional banking system. If that banking system is upset, then they lose power, and so they are fighting to preserve their position.

Not only do I think there's no such conspiracy, but I think there are much better, more mundane explanations.

In the course of debating with me about whether or not the conspiracy is true, not one single person, not a single one, who has contacted me, has shown me a single bit of even indirect evidence of any aspect of this conspiracy.

But, I'm nice, so I decided to help them out. I looked around to see if I could find any smoking guns for myself.

The first thing I found with a little Google searching was this Medium article by Jonald Fyookball which starts to at least outline some of the supposed evidence. I don't know much about Mr Fyookball, but I've seen his name around a bit, and I get the sense that he's a reasonable person, so this seems like an okay place to start.

But, some of the problems of that are common to pushing conspiracy theories start to emerge right away.


A lot of the "logical" justification for the conspiracy is phrased in a grammatical form known as the second conditional, such as, "if you were in power, then you would destroy any threat to that power." This kind of phrasing makes it sound as if the suppositions and their conclusions are so obvious as to be factual. Similar to, "if you were too close to a fire, you would step back so that you don't get burned."

But, just because you phrase something as an obvious process leading to the conclusion you think is the most natural, doesn't mean you're describing a real situation. As I've described elsewhere, not only do I think the conspiratorial conclusions being drawn are not inevitable, I think they're the least likely scenario.

A Waterfall of Words

Anyway, let's filter out the dubious phrasing and see what evidence we might have. Mr Fyookball links to this lengthy post on r/btc which lists all the connections between... well, everyone and everything. This is another tactic of conspiratorial theorizing, which is to pour a waterfall of words over you, to make you feel like you're being informed because of the volume of information.

But no single detail reveals anything important. Yes, I read the whole thing. No, none of it makes me think anything particularly unusual is happening. It's just a lot of "person X worked at place Y, and then sometime later, place Y hired person Z, so person X and person Z have a connection." It's so devoid of meaningful data points that I'm getting bored just thinking about it. So, let's move on.

Whose Conspiracy is This?

There's also this post on r/btc, which at least gets more to the point by claiming that AXA Ventures is a tool of the Bilderberg group. This claim is based on the fact that there the CEO of AXA is also a chairman of the Bilderberg group. AXA Ventures, if you're not already aware is one of the major investors of Blockstream.

The Bilderberg group is a meeting that takes place every now and again, where a bunch of rich and influential people get together to discuss the pressing matters of the world. Of course, the Bildeberg group itself claims that they're not much more than that. Just a discussion group.

But, even if we take them at their word on that, a simple discussion can have big implications depending on who is at the table. There's no doubt that people who attend Bildeberg meetings come out with new ideas about how they can use their wealth and influence, kind of like the inspiration people get from TED talks. After all, why else go to these things?

But, do they come away from their meetings with a vague sense of inspiration and the illusion of being informed, like TED talks? Or do Bildeberg group members have specific hidden agendas, to create subterfuge and shadowy psyops campaigns to manipulate the world? That's where it gets shaky. There is no evidence, recent or historical, that the Bildeberg group is responsible for anything like that. Which is pretty surprising given that they have had known monsters like Henry Kissinger among their attendees.

The thing is, Kissinger didn't need any Bildeberg group to help him massacre countless people in Cambodia. He had all the power and influence he needed to do that on his own within the US government. And that's the reality of the Bildeberg group. No one who goes to the Bildeberg group needs anyone else there to further their aims.

One part of convincing me that the Bildeberg group is controlling AXA is demonstrating that that the Bildeberg group has a cohesive singular policy, and that they have ever acted on that. Personally, my experience with humans is that if you have five of them in a room, you get seven different opinions, and I don't think the rich are any different.

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon

Moving on, this article on talks about how Blockstream has a particular guy who is a known former spy in it. Wait... so you're telling me that people who specialize in cryptography might sometimes do the same kind of work in the government, and also sometimes in the private sector? Shocking!

This connects back to the previous point about the fact that the CEO of AXA is also the head of the Bildeberg Group. People who are rich, successful, skilled, or knowledgeable, are in demand, and they move around a lot, network a lot, and have connections all over the place. You can probably draw a line between any two people on the planet, but the dots you need to connect are fewer when you narrow the pool down to 1% of the population.

This answer on Quora for example, shows how you can connect the CIA to Facebook. The CIA has an investment arm called In-Q-Tel. The first CEO of In-Q-Tel was also on the board of venture capital firm called National Venture Capital Association. Also on board member of NVCA was a guy who runs a firm called Accel Partners. Accel Partners invested in Facebook.

Is that chain of associations the thread you can pull on to unravel how the CIA is using front companies to create backdoor access to Facebook? Or are you just knitting your own scarf by selecting the strings you like out of the billions of possibilities that are created by all the random interlocking connections between people living their lives and getting jobs and making investments within their area of interest?

The only way to show that the Bildeberg connection to AXA, or the Facebook connection to the CIA, is more than just imposing your own patterns onto the chaotic systems of life is to show some actual evidence of that connection being used. Some kind of communication that followed the path. A directive or an order. A statement of intent. Something. Anything.

But there isn't anything. I've looked at more pages and posts than the ones listed above, but very quickly, I didn't feel I was getting anything new or different. As conspiracy theories go, it's pretty thin. It doesn't even begin to compare to the mountains of dubious evidence that support other unlikely situations that are almost certainly untrue, like aliens hanging out in Area 51, or that 9/11 was an inside job.

Nothing Said Here Will End The Conspiracy Theories

The problem with talking to anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is that their ultimate fall back position is that by definition a conspiracy can't be proven to exist. If there was any objective, provable, verifiable evidence, then the conspiracy would be exposed and have fallen apart already. A lack of evidence, therefore, becomes evidence of an even better conspiracy.

And also, as I've experienced, I will be accused of either being duped by the conspirators into helping provide a cover story for them by coming up with plausible alternative narratives. Or I'll just get accused of being a paid shill tasked with providing a smokescreen.

If someone ever happens to talk to Blockstream, maybe let them know that they owe me for all this work I've been doing for them for free?

$ 22.12
$ 16.53 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 5.00 from @ErdoganTalk
$ 0.59 from Anonymous user(s)
Avatar for dave_gutteridge
2 years ago


Who cares about Bilderberg? Just the funding by AXA and Mastercard is enough. Blockstream required funding for some reason, probably to pay the devs. It found it through the banks. And for another reason the Bitcoin Core devs under the Blockstream payroll are the ones that control the development. And they are those that stalled innovation by crippling BTC to help LN and Liquid rise into a position that can now negotiate contracts with governments.

Somehow the Bilderberg group doesn't seem as important as the fact that Blockstream is running this show and it is funded by traditional finances. Adam Back was the one that decided Bitcoin should not scale. So much for consensus and decentralization.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

The way you've written this comment comes across as if you disagree with what I've written. I don't know if that's your intent, but what you're saying here is not so different from what I'm saying.

I believe that Blockstream was created and funded for the purpose of moving people to profitable side chain ventures. In order to get people to use those side chain services, they had to hobble Bitcoin and convince people this was rational. I think that's in line with what you're saying.

What this article is about, though, is looking at a belief that some people hold, which is that the crippling of Bitcoin is the ultimate goal, in order for traditional financial systems to protect themselves. That belief is unjustified by any evidence or analysis.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

crippling of Bitcoin is the ultimate goal, in order for traditional financial systems to protect themselves

This is what happened though. The financial system survived what could have been a massive blow if BTC proceeded with scaling in 2015.

The fact that BTC was not working after a certain level of adoption it helped banks and governments. Since Bitcoin was rising exponentially in adoption levels until it was found to be useless.

Then the narratives suddenly changed. From a financial revolution, it became digital gold. And the maxi puppets were singing the Blockstream tunes while surrendering Bitcoin to centralized LN financial hubs. These are private regulated entities that will have to comply with any government request.

LN is not different from Coinbase and those that use exchanges as wallets. It doesn't matter if banks are not directly running LN hubs. What is required by traditional finance is private regulated companies to run the hubs. It is all about control. EU and the US are ready to pass laws to ban all non-custodial wallets.

Already about 90% of the BTC holders are just traders or investors. This is also a victory of traditional finance. 99% are just investors that can't use their BTC or Doge from Robinhood, Square, e-Toro, Paypal, Grayscale, or wherever they bought them since there is no withdrawal option.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin Cash has on-chain adoption. Why is that? Because it scales. Imagine Bitcoin in 2017 being able to scale, it would dominate e-commerce. The US can't track blockchain transactions. Everything can be traced until it doesn't. Has the US found Vinnik's stack of Mt.Gox BTC? They only found him because he gave his private information in a bitcointalk post. Same with Ulbricht. They wouldn't be able to track the money when it is laundered. They can see the laundering, and find some data but not exactly match them.

The government wants a piece of the pie, banks want it to be about trading and investing, Blockstream has its own plans with Liquid. There is nobody in BTC that cares anymore about the revolutionary spirit. Plenty of BTC banker-maxis promote the interests of banks, write about how banks are important and how much regulation is required for BTC adoption. Everyone in BTC is a sellout today. As long as the bags are pumping they wouldn't care if JPMorgan is authorizing their transactions.

Have you read before how important slight regulations are for Bitcoin to expand? Important for the pump and dump of prices yes. But not for the network. It doesn't require any regulations, just acceptance by businesses.

Have you wondered why was BTC considered evil, until 2015 by the mainstream media, and suddenly after the successful hijack by Blockstream, all the negativity was removed? There were hundreds of spam accounts downvoting and spamming r/bitcoin trashing Bitcoin until the moment Blockstream took control. These disappeared all of a sudden and new accounts appeared promoting the "store of value" nonsense argument. Financial illiteracy is at its best, but this is another topic.

Anyway, it doesn't take too much time to spot everything. Either you do or you don't.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I see everything you're talking about, but I disagree with the conclusions that this is all about financial institutions protecting themselves. I think AXA and all other investors are playing to win, not playing to remain in place with everyone else.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

"... do Bildeberg group members have specific hidden agendas, to create subterfuge and shadowy psyops campaigns to manipulate the world? ..."

Of course they do.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I would ask how you have evidence for this, but, I've learned that asking for evidence from people who believe in conspiracy only ends with them attacking me ad-hominem. So, sure, whatever man.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I would ask how many who attack conspiracy believer's beliefs can not see even some of the the obvious truths the conspiracy theories are built from, but then I would be implying they are blind or intentionally misled. Sounds like that would be pretty ad-hominem of me, so I will try not to do that :-)

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I think it's nothing to do with Bitcoin being a threat, and everything to do with certain people wanting to gear it towards being an asset where the price rises. If you make it hard to spend, and convince the newbies in r/bitcoin to buy buy buy, hold forever, never spend your bitcoin, it creates massive buy power, nobody is selling, and as long as they keep a constant stream of "investors" the price keeps rising, while at the same time all the HOLD 4 LYF normies are propping the market up, allowing the big players to cash out huge sums at key points, without crashing the market too hard. Basically this has been caused by greed, and core people selling out.

As well as others being pushed out, and censored.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

According to the conspiracy theory I hold dear, your theory (I call the "greed theory") is a commonly stated cover story for the real reason(s). The social engineering used by the conspirators is very sophisticated and well funded. Pointing out how evil and greedy forces captured BTC does sound believable because it is ALSO TRUE. IMO, just not the primary reason the attack is so well funded.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

There are people who want to pump Bitcoin's price, sure. But that's a separate issue from the people who believe in conspiracy theories.

$ 0.00
2 years ago