I have no experience with Bitcoin or its community - so apologies if the following is naive - but some parts of this article make no sense for me.
For events to have taken place like described in the article, several parties would have been required to work together with the common goal of keeping the blocksize restriction in place:
The Chinese miners who hold the majority of the hashing power, the developers of Bitcoin Core, the admins of bitcoin.org and the as of now unidentified operators of the DDOS attacks.
If you assume it's not a conspiracy, then each party must have reasons why such a decision would be desirable. But as the author describes it, there are no reasons. This goal wouldn't just push Bitcoin into a questionable direction, it would be downright suicidal: Over time, Bitcoin would become unusable for any kind of transaction. Not even the greedy miners could want a cryptocurrency that no one uses.
So I think there has to be some upside to the blocksize restriction. If anyone has more info on that, I'd be happy to know.
For events to have taken place like described in the article, several parties would have been required to work together with the common goal of keeping the blocksize restriction in place:
The Chinese miners who hold the majority of the hashing power, the developers of Bitcoin Core, the admins of bitcoin.org and the as of now unidentified operators of the DDOS attacks.
If you assume it's not a conspiracy, then each party must have reasons why such a decision would be desirable. But as the author describes it, there are no reasons. This goal wouldn't just push Bitcoin into a questionable direction, it would be downright suicidal: Over time, Bitcoin would become unusable for any kind of transaction. Not even the greedy miners could want a cryptocurrency that no one uses.
So I think there has to be some upside to the blocksize restriction. If anyone has more info on that, I'd be happy to know.