Ever notice as you discuss the chain of events that unfolded where Bitcoin is stuck at 4 TP and is not aiming to be p2p cash anymore trolls always resort to 1 parroted tactic: "Those 2 things are not related."
Adam Back was for a blocksize increase before Blockstream got any funding: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNNSeQzVAAABnmA.jpg
Once Adam Back got $55 million from AXA he started fudding against blocksizes increases despite just being for them: https://i.redd.it/dzam0whnhhdx.jpg
/r/Bitcoin and BitcoinTalk forums ONLY allowed discussion of SegWit. No blocksize increases. Coincidentally when BitcoinXT was breaching 50%.
It's funny how SegWit was voted on by miners with hashpower to activate SegWit. But when 90% of miners voted for the 2MB increase, it was not valid and Bitcoin Core and Blockstream vocally denounced them.
It's funny how when BitcoinXT was gaining 50% it wasn't a valid client and was censored all discussions of it. However UASF which was also non-miner voting, was OK.
From Bitcoin Core the only people who were pushed away were just the big blockers, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik.
Brian Armstrong was also for big blocks and as a result he was banned in /r/bitcoin. No comments by /u/adam3us of course. He's never commented why he's happy to communicate in forums that are censored to only allow discussion of Blockstream products.
/r/bitcoin which is for Bitcoin discussion often allows discussion of Blockstream's Liquid product, tether and other altcoins. Litecoin was allowed as well during times of congestion as is Grin. Bitcoin Cash posts are only allowed if they are negative in tone.
Blockstream must live in a perfect world as everyone is aligning with them and anti-Blockstream comments are removed. You can't even mention that Blockstream is funded by AXA in /r/bitcoin despite being able to mention any Blockstream product like Liquid.