The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality.
What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking.
The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact.
I actually favor a more moderate increase as well, however in the absence of a third alternative and when forced to choose between Core and BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if that means I am choosing the lesser of two evils.
Well I'd even go with BIP101 in Core, but I'd never go with XT. It comes with a lot of baggage and a CEO.
You can easily just patch BIP101 into Core yourself, or run a BIP101 only version of XT. Only the blocksize increase is consensus critical, everything else is optional, so there is no "extra baggage" as you claim.
Why does XT have to "take over"? Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?
Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all. My answer is, why would we? Exactly what do you think this will achieve aside unnecessary complexity; less control for Core?
Because it is an extension of the ethos of decentralization and yes this would lead to Core having less control, that would be the desired effect indeed. Reduced control/influence for any singular development team would be a great achievement and milestone for the development of Bitcoin.
