I can't see how anyone could argue Core didn't shift the roadmap to a *wished* LN, fully knowing it will fail, as a way to stunt on-chain scaling development, all for the final ends of moving the bulk of transactions
to a custodial service running on proprietary solution. Think about it. Why would they assign only a single BS dev to work on the LN if everything for BTC to succeed depends on the LN?
An obligatory proof they deliberately sunt scaling is the paper showing a way to easily reduce the number of fullnodes without changing the degree of overall consensus rules validation
