In one of his last messages in 2010 before going publically inactive, Bitcoin's creator wrote:

> Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289... )

Hal Finney, one of the main developers of PGP and Bitcoin's first user wrote in 2010:

> I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg342... )

That sort of view was well known and understood by others in early 2011 when (now former) Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen had recently started he wrote of the future:

> I bet there will be alternative, secure-and-trusted, very-high-speed network connections between major bitcoin transaction processors. Maybe it will just be bitcoin transactions flying across the existing Visa/MasterCard/etc networks (I have no idea what their transaction clearing/processing networks look like or how they work).

( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118.msg44789#msg447... )

Or, look at other discussions early in Bitcoin's life-- and instead of quoting myself from back then, I'll show that these views were broadly understood:

> 2010-12-09 02:14:28 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: that seems like a bad idea; I have a niggling feeling in the back of my head that the optimal bitcoin-like system would have even smaller blocks/transactions than current bitcoin....

( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2010-12-09.html#... )

> 2011-07-15 03:32:13 <moa7> actually the more it shakes out the more bitcoin is looking like a settlement clearing system like interbank market e.g.

> 2011-07-15 03:41:46 <jgarzik> moa7: RE "settlement clearing system" <<-- EXACTLY

> 2011-07-15 03:42:22 <jgarzik> moa7: it is presumed by many that a future bitcoin (if successful) will involve a secondary layer that can handle higher volumes, microtransactions, etc.

( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2011-07-15.html#... )

2012-04-13 17:56:22 <jgarzik> IMO I think the current bitcoin's endgame is as a not-high-volume settlement network.

( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-04-13.html#... )

Or,

> 2012-09-09 20:00:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I am against changing block size, FWIW. I think the market will properly intervene, bitcoin will reach a steady state where all blocks are 1MB, and the best bidding gets block placement. SatoshiDICE and other data apps automatically
solve themselves, once 1MB is normal.

> 2012-09-09 20:00:48 <jgarzik> I think I will be overruled, but that is my position.

> 2012-09-09 20:03:24 <jgarzik> bitcoin exists _because_ of certain constrained limits. money creation is one of them. block space is another.

> 2012-09-09 20:03:35 <jgarzik> that is a fundamental constraint; messing with it massively changes the economics

( https://buildingbitcoin.org/bitcoin-dev/log-2012-09-09.html#... )

There are plenty of tough trade-offs in Bitcoin and reasonable people can have no end of a disagreement about them. But these discussions, mostly from before any credit card company ever heard of Bitcoin-- show that a nuanced understanding existed all along.

Disagree if you like, but the conspiracy theories are an insult to everyone's intelligence borne out of a malicious and dishonest rewriting of Bitcoin's history pushed on by court decreed fraudsters like Craig Wright. You have plenty of alternatives-- if they're better then they should stand on their own without the abuse and deceptive FUD.