The dispute — which grew out of a question about the number of transactions the Bitcoin network can handle — may sound like something of interest only to the most die-hard techies.
But it has exposed fundamental differences about the basic aims of the Bitcoin project, and how online communities should be governed. The two camps have broadly painted each other as, on one side, populists who are focused on expanding Bitcoin’s commercial potential and, on the other side, elitists [i.e., the Core Cartel] who are more concerned with protecting its status as a radical challenger to existing currencies.
Store of Value is the new narrative while migrating the network to trusted watch towers and LN banks.
The divide has led over the last six months to death threats against Bitcoin developers and hacking attacks that have taken down Internet providers. The sense of betrayal is strong on both sides. One of Mr. Hearn’s primary antagonists, a bearded California-based programmer named Gregory Maxwell, also appears to have pulled back from his work on Bitcoin after receiving anonymous death threats.
This quote shows that Popper, or his editors, missed the purpose of bitcoin, to challenge the powers that be that run the world's fiat currencies. By limiting the capacity of Bitcoin, the Core cartel guaranteed that bitcoin could never become an effective challenger to existing currencies.
Or, perhaps, Popper et. al. were well aware, but didn't want to go up against the powers that be, because it would be a career limiting move.
They're already setting up their false narrative even back then; bitcoin's commercial potential and its status as a radical challenger to existing currencies are directly opposed, not inseparable pieces.