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.
Agreed.
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.
True, however in the case of a theoritical 50/50 split they could both say that they are the true Bitcoin. Which would be the altcoin and which would be the true Bitcoin? A minority could even claim that they are the true Bitcoin and the other side of the fork is the altcoin or vice versa. The point is, which side is the "altcoin" and which side is the "true Bitcoin" is a matter of perspective in the case of a protocol fork.
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.
How can the protocol be a tyrany while Bitcoin remains completly voluntary, this is a contradiction. Bitcoin is complently voluntary in its use and 51% of the mining power can fork Bitcoin at any time, this is not consistant with a tyranny.
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.
Agreed, however if Core does not increase the block size before the network becomes significantly overloaded then I will consider Core to have failed, then a different implementation will win, I hope that you can agree with that as well. There do need to be alternative implementations already in place if people do choose to change however, so I do not understand why you disagree with the idea of decentralization of development through multiple implementations and possibly competing development teams. Even if the majority of the work is done by the "reference implementation".