It will all come down to a question: Who can control it through a lot of bitcoin in his hand?
No, it doesn't come down to that. Having a lot of Bitcoin does not imply any control whatsoever.
Own a lot of it then you will see how fast it will move with just thousands of bitcoin to trade or cash it out.
This is useless.
I am going to throw a Spanner into the works now, by saying some developers with commit access have some control over the changes that will or will not be made to the protocol. You still have the choice to go on your own, but if your proposal do not pass the Core team's approval, it will not be considered. Do you agree? ^hmmmm^
This is causing some friction between developers who are not part of the Core team, and the developers on the outside, who wants to contribute, but blocked from the inside. As I said, you are still welcome to do your own thing, and not to include your proposal into the Bitcoin protocol. ^?
?^
I don't. The project is open-source for a reason, and anyone can work on it if they choose to. The developers also think and act independently, as in some may like a set of changes while others won't. I doubt that the developers would reject a (good) proposed implementation just because 'you're not part of Core team'. Also, having commit access to a Github repository does not give you any kind of control over Bitcoin.
If commit access to a Github respository gives you no control, why then did they remove Gavin's commit access? The person with the key to the castle, can decide to open the door or to keep it closed. It is for this reason, why several people within the Core team, are given commit access and not only one.
We cannot deny the crucial influence this may have, if someone with malicious intent, could get sole access to that respository. < Sending out false alarms and distributing malicious code, as if it came from the Core team >
Correct me if I am wrong, please. ^smile^
