[nullc]

> He didn't advocate for a centrally planned block limit.

I don't know about 'centerally planned' but he hardcoded a limit into the consensus rules.

> Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik are well known big blockers so stop trying to imply otherwise.

That's the point. And I a pointing out that they said all these things in 2010-2014-- as you can see some of the quotes (esp from Jeff) are quite emphatic. I could quote a lot more.

The narrative a lot of people are transmitting about Bitcoin is untrue, and by showing the diversity of these views going WAY back from people who later tried to push through changes I think makes that point pretty well.

[DrCraigWright]

I guess that you do not understand the meaning of the word "enforce"?

Not, nodes set rules, they enforce them.

[cedivad]

He "hardcoded" a spam protection measure at a time when it was legitimately expected an attacker would spend a few dollars and clog up the blockchain significantly.

This was always intended as a temporary measure and it was understood by the community at large that the limit would be removed as soon as it started hindering adoption. As an example, see this reddit thread of mine 86% upvoted: https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35hpkt/please_remi...

As history will remember, what happened then is that you decided you had missed out on the boat and you started raising money for your stupid little layer 2 solution while censoring everyone suggesting it had to coexist with a bigger block size.

I'm not going to mince words, you are the reason Bitcoin is a speculative scam instead of a real payments revolution as it was intended to be. It had one chance and thanks to you and your cronies the only people benefiting from it are the ones liquidating noobs on bitmex.