You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.
And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core?
Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.
Please stop swallowing every lie that comes out of Mike Hearn's mouth.
Wladimir has repeatedly stated that in situations where consensus critical parts of the code would be debated he would require at the very least rough consensus amongst dev to move forward with any proposition.
Don't confuse a code repo maintainer with a dictator that just shines light on your technical ignorance.
From a purely political perspective I do not see the difference. They are essentially the same thing, never before has an open source software project become so political. This why it is should no longer be acceptable that a single person or a small group of people have the final say over the development of Bitcoin. This power needs to be distributed and divided among multiple implementations, which most likely will also be dictatorial in their internal decision making processes. However when people do have several implementations to choose from, the freedom of choice is increased and this does solve the problem of centralized development.