I never claimed that the economic majority is presently siding with XT, I am not in a position to know that, furthermore I suspect that January will be a very informative month in that regard. So you are arguing a straw man here, for the rest of your post you have not actually made any arguments.
Why January? Something to do with XT? Why do you suspect January will be informative wrt "economic majority"?
I must have misread the following from you:
However the core developers should not decide what goes into the Bitcoin protocol, this is a very important distinction, it is the economic majority that should and does ultimately decide on what the Bitcoin protocol should be, not the core developers. That is why it is so important that we have multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, including multiple competing development teams.
=> Core is evil, "economic majority" should decide
I do not think that the economic majority would want to pay $100 per transaction that is my point.
=> XT is good, wants to prevent increased fees, "economic majority" wants that too
Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.
=> XT is good alternative implementation, Core is evil totalitarian
It seems like Core does not want to test the consensus using proof of work and multiple implementations, therefore Core does just implement whatever they want to implement. I am saying that we should allow the economic majority to decide by allowing people to choose from multiple implementations, this is the best and really the only way to reach true and legitimate consensus.
=> Multiple implementations good ("economic majority" will make evil Core obsolete)
If you think your vision for a Bitcoin competitor is such a good idea, go and get your own hashrate to subject it to. Your agenda is to change a system that doesn't want your proposal, and you just won't go away. You're in a minority, and a decreasing minorty at that. The real plan to scale Bitcoin up responsibly is now underway with BIP 65 rolling out. Get your own coin.
The economic majority might not agree with you, time will tell. Bitcoin is also not your coin, it belongs to everyone, Satoshi's gift to the world.
=> "Economic majority" *might* hate evil Core
Satoshi decided for us. Should we tear apart the whole thing and have it rewritten by "the economic majority"?
The will of the economic majority is more important then Satoshi's vision. Invoking Satoshi's vision surely must be a mistake on your behalf however since he did support increasing the blocksize:
=> "economic majority" disagrees with brg444, thus agrees with XT huge blocks
For some issues however like the blocksize specifically, it does seem like some other alternative implementations are willing to implement this change sooner then Core is willing to. So when it comes to fundamental disagreements like the blocksize in this case at least having multiple implementations might speed up the implementation of what the economic majority wants. More then seventy five percent of the miners are voting for an increased blocksize after all.
=> multiple implementations good, "economic majority" does not want Core
XT is not a takeover of Bitcoin, I wish you would stop saying this, I can respect your position, but saying that XT is a takeover actually harms all of Bitcoin regardless of what you believe.
Rule by the economic majority is how Bitcoin is meant to be governed. So if the majority of people freely choose to adopt an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol then this should be considered legitimate, even if you disagree. XT requires seventy five percent consensus in order for it to even initiate a fork after all.
=> XT is good, enables "economic majority" to decide
Enough with this. Please stop this masquerade. Write short and to the point.
There is also much more to Bitcoin governance then just the full nodes. That would be an oversimplification, the governance of Bitcoin exists as an interconnected web of variant interests, represented by the nodes as well as the miners among other parties.
There is no "governance of Bitcoin". Bitcoin is not a state. It is a p2p network.
There is such a thing as Bitcoin governance, decisions do still need to be made after all. You are simply just arguing another huge straw man here, you are misrepresenting my views.
