The danger of centralisation of power and tyrrany of development would be to great of a cost to pay for not diverting resources. Since decentralisation implies the diversion of resources. Having multiple implementations would make the protocol more robust over the long term.
You are implying that multiple implementations will somehow make the protocol more robust, I say otherwise. What makes protocol more robust is extensive peer-review, not some buzz like development decentralization.
Bitcoin is consensus-critical, so you can't apply the same principles to it as you would to other open-source projects
We can apply some of the same principles to it since Bitcoin is also a open-source project.
Exactly.
Some, not all.
You should not and can not enforce network consensus in the case of a split.
I certainly can't. It will resolve naturally, either one of forks dies, or it becomes an altcoin. Only one true Bitcoin can exist at a time. And this true Bitcoin will continue enforcing network consensus within itself.
Bitcoin is not about the tyranny of the majority. It's about tyranny of the protocol. Rules have to be enforced for the network to function.
You are advocating tyranny of the protocol, I disagree. Bitcoin is and should be voluntary.
I'm not advocating, I'm explaining to you how Bitcoin network consensus works. And Bitcoin
is voluntary.
If you think that we should all rely on the internal decision making process of Core. Then we will run into some of the same problems that large corporations and states run into, since if we wanted the Core development to reflect the will of the economic majority or possible another measure of consensus. Then we would need to attempt to construct a type of centralized governance structure on top of Bitcoin in the form of Core development, this in my opinion would be in conflict to the principles of freedom and decentralization that Bitcoin was founded upon.
That's not what I think. I have alrealy explained to you that Bitcoin development is decentralized by nature. Anyone can create different implementations, and the economic majority is free to choose. And it chooses Core, that's reality. If Core fails, then a different implementation can win. But that's not the case now.