Congratulations Lauda, you've been the only one to answer my point. When I mean leader, I don't mean someone to give rules, nor to tell us what to do, but someone to fix problems. We may imagine that some hacker tomorrow, finds a vulnerability and writes a virus to attack all miners. Just like a city needs a fire department service, BTC needs someone able to fix any problem which may arise, and I say that's why so many people like about Ether: there's a guy in charge.
You're not talking about much more that developers IMO. Technically you could say that Wladimir is in 'charge' because he is the maintainer of the Bitcoin Core project on Github. However, there are plenty of developers working on Bitcoin. Exactly how do you imagine this 'guy in charge'; what would be the difference between that system and the current one that we have? We can't really compare to ETH since "our Vitalik Buterin" has disappeared long ago.
Exactly, the lack of a single entity to put pressure on is a huge advantage. There are many thousands of leaders in Bitcoin.
If we have learned anything in the recent times, it is that this is not true.
If the majority of people misunderstand the point,you failed to project it in a functional way to appeal to the masses.
Maybe you should put more thought into reading and analyzing before rushing to make a post.
I am quite happy with bitcoin. As user has increased, there is a competition and you have to pay a strong fee to get included.
Apparently some people think that it is economically viable for the Bitcoin network to be practically free to use, which is a completely irrational view of the presented system. Nothing is free.
Update 1: Another off-topic post.
