To be honest I am shocked that you are even trying to defend a top down approach for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not the same as gold, it is better, we can sent it across the world with low cost and its fundamental properties can be changed unlike gold. Bitcoin is both a commodity and a currency, it is both a payment channel and a distributed database. It can do all of these things without compromising the fundamental principles of decentralization and freedom. These different capabilities of Bitcoin actually reinforce each other in a synergistic fashion. I think you are constructing a false dichotomy by saying that we must choose between these different features.
I'm defending the only Bitcoin that ever existed vs the esoteric ideal you have that I frankly don't think it would ever work, but you are free to try it on your own blockchain.
I am defending the original Bitcoin, your concept of top down governance is not how Bitcoin works technically, you might be able to enforce it through a culture of believe, but that does not change the ultimate reality which is that if the economic majority turns against Core, it will be left in the dust. You can deny this all you like but the truth is on my side.
I think that Bitcoin should be governed through a bottom up approach since this is what most closely resembles the principles of decentralization and freedom. I also think that this is how Bitcoin was designed to function and how it technically functions today. This can be subverted purely through the culture and believe of its participants, it seems like you are now actually advocating such a believe by saying that individual users should not make these decisions for themselves independently.
At least it is clear now where you stand, you want their to be top down governance of Bitcoin, I want bottom up governance. These are fundamentally incompatible concepts. I advocate freedom of choice which could lead to a split when fundamental disagreements arise. You seem to be advocating totalitarianism, tyranny of the majority or even tyranny of a minority, since without using proof of work as a way to measure consensus, consensus will be whatever Core says it is. Their governance might be benign but I refuse to entrust the future of Bitcoin with such a small technocratic elite.
People can decide for themselves what kind of a Bitcoin they want and by extension what kind of a world they want. Even if you insist that people should not have this choice over the future of Bitcoin it does not change that people do have this freedom of choice. So everyone please choose wisely, consider the advantages of freedom.
It's not just Core saying no to BIP101 or XT, it's the miners too, and the vast majority of the nodes. The message couldn't be clearer, are you suggesting it's fairer to have a sufficiently aggressive minority overrule that?
You are changing the subject, the majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize, this however is irrelevant in regards to us discussing what we think Bitcoin is and should become.
I do not mean to be so dramatic but these two opposing conceptions of Bitcoin governance are the equivalent between totalitarianism and freedom. I am confident that I am on the right side of history.