Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
If anything suspicious happens, I will be the first to abandon the "official" client then.
For now, such scenario seems highly improbable.
Let me make explain it in other words:
One does not simply pass The Federal Reserve Act and conquer a whole nation through private central banking. It happened in America, the most decentralized nation of them all with a clear constitution and rules of engagement. It can happen here in the Bitcoin realm.
There are people out there who are threatened by Bitcoin. They will try to manipulate culture and have people sway to their whim. This organization is perfect for that.
American politics != Bitcoin version adoption.
Perhaps you don't understand that difference between democracy in open-source development and democracy in representative government. They're very different things.
All I know is every banking institution and technology in the world has been conquered through proxies, deceit and corruption. Every central bank in the world has been sold out to private individuals regardless of good intentions and rule of law.
It is close to impossible.The human factor is always the weakest factor. The source code factor - that's another story.If humans interpret the Bitcoin source code standardization of The Bitcoin Foundation as legitimate and as the sole authority, the Bitcoin source code can change with no question as long as this authority makes the changes. The process will turn into a cult of personality. Bitcoin will rest in the hands of a single organization.
Obviously, you have no idea how programming works.
Thus, you have no ducking idea what you are talking about.
Talking to you is as useful & constructive, as talking to a duck.
I'm actually starting to wonder if you are actually a madman or perhaps you get paid to do this.
You simply fail to understand me. Source code review only works if people can easily denounce the changes without being called a troll and told to leave. If a cult around the Bitcoin Foundation forms under its implied authority and ties to Congress, it could make contesting changes obsolete.
The illusion of choice should remain but the ability may not.
Then You have no idea how internet works.
On the internet, anybody can denounce everybody, if they have proof. And it is trivial to get proof on the Internet as the necessary wisdom is everywhere accessible within seconds.
Also, programmers don't need lawyers, specialists & other expert witnesses to determine if somebody's proof is valid or not.
If somebody marks 10 lines of code, and proves that these lines contains a trojan, it is trivial to asses if he is telling the truth.
Also, you fail to see that just one evil move of the Gavin's foundation would condemn it forever, and nobody would trust it (or the people behind it) ever again.
Is that worth the risk ? Highly doubtable.Not if evil is redefined over time by The Bitcoin Foundation and people accept the message.
You still fail to grasp how Open Source world works.
If i don't like the code, I start a fork, I present the evidence that Gavin is cheating, so people start using my fork. It is as simple as that.
Actually, I already did that once, because i didn't like official client forcing fees in some situations.
In case of such event, everybody in their right minds would use my fork, because everybody would know that Gavin's version has government's trojan. Of course, there would be major chaos at first, but after some period of time, we would be back to "normal".
