> It refers for example to an attack by Ghash, and then dismisses their explanation that it was an employee without providing much evidence and without pointing

> It refers for example to an attack by Ghash, and then dismisses their explanation that it was an employee without providing much evidence and without pointing that his dismissal of their explanation was simply speculation. I did not dismiss it, how did you read that? > Moreover, it suggests that Ghash gained 50% of hashing power and nothing happened. In fact a lot happened, so much so that Ghash currently has around 2% of the hashing power. That doesn't seem to be related: they were close to 50% 4 months after the theft incident, and again 10 months after. Someone else queried that, and I did some digging to ensure that my memory of event order was correct. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fxvbr/blocksize_a_debate_summary/cttdfi4?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fxvbr/blocksize_a... > And to suggest that Gavin, or even Satoshi himself, is myopic, seeing only the "user" ui point of view "only"? In my final paragraph I tried to draw the distinction between the priorities of the different views. You seem to have read things in my article which aren't intended :(