The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.
There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.
There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.
Agreed. One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be. I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment. Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything. If anything, the gap appears to be widening. We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split. I honestly don't see this ending amicably.
Points to remember:
- If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
- Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
- Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
- Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
- Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.
Oxymorons to avoid:
- "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
- "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
- "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
- "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"
