Quoting for archival purposes.
...part of the reason people should choose to use and recommend the reference software instead of some other is the consideration of features that where is the consideration of features that where included _and_ excluded, even if some people don't always agree completely with all of them.
This is central planning right here.
Here's another example of central planning:
http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfIn other words, not persuasive.
Nakamoto's plan is the canvas in the context of my argument. It functions perfectly fine. Bitcoin has no problems thus far.
All I am arguing against is people who want to single handily plan out its future and shape it to their wishes. Why? Because people fail. Nakamoto hasn't failed and that's great but we should preserve the success we have now and not squander it through radical change that may or may not work nor through a single point of failure that is a single development process.
Hybrid secessions in the Bitcoin development community are a must else we end up with a inbred culture that can be easily corrupted.
No, another currency will not do. Bitcoin has momentum that is very scarce. If destroyed, cryptocurrency might be doomed for another few decades.