The original vision of bitcoin was for on-chain scaling with miners competing in a competitive market for PoW mining of blocks with no barriers to entry, Blockstream changed that, and so BCH was forked to continue the original path, which leaves Blockstream and friends to create a second layer that forces users onto their LN which allows them to collect fees (i.e that's their 'business model', Blockstream is a business who happens to have enough of the core devs on staff to have stopped the common sense increase in blocksize last year). None of that is a conspiracy theory, or related to EDA, just the facts to neutral observers like myself.
Much of this is a false misrepresentation of the history to back the BCH narrative. You say you aren't partisan, but you're spreading their falsehoods. Nothing in the "original vision" of Satoshi was against second layer solutions. Second layer solutions are not about Blockstream collecting fees, but about enabling real ways to scale transactions while maintaining decentralization of nodes.
Calling you a zealot is not a personal attack, look up the meaning, it describes what you're doing pretty accurately, don't take offense, you responded to me as as a partisan warrior in the bitcoin civil war - I'm not partisan at all bro, you are on one side, I'm on neither (or both depending on how you look at it)!
I know what a zealot is. It's a personal attack because you know it's a term with a negative connotation that you're using to pigeonhole and assume what someone believes rather than try to understand where they're coming from. It's also not an argument.
I'll repeat, I own both versions of bitcoin
Repeating your investment strategy a million times won't change the fact that your philosophy on the tech is partisan, demonstrated by your willingness to spread misinformation.
I think scaling requires both block size increases AND second layer solutions
Given that I'm still open to the possibility that scaling *might* require a base level block size increase at some time in the future, but that successful scaling will *definitely* require second layer solutions, it would seem that the only places we differ are in what should be prioritized first, whether or not we believe in using conspiracy theories as partisan narratives, and how much we're willing to invest in the technical strategies that we most believe in.
you are the one taking sides with passionate fervor.
I'm passionate about being on a "side" that disregards conspiracy theories when other reasonable explanations exist.
