An economist would also understand the inherent disadvantageous of central economic planning, which in effect is what Core is attempting to do now, at least in regards to their position on the blocksize related to governance. Essentially I believe that ideally the blocksize limit should not be used to determine the actual average blocksize, blocksize should ideally emerge from factors of supply and demand instead.
The core developers absolutely do believe the market should decide upon the blocksize limit and direction of the codebase. I have never heard the argument from one of them that their should only be one implementation and people should be restricted to only using their repisitory.
Whatever the people want they can get, as its entirely up to them what code they use.
What I see happening here is some are bitter that developers aren't beholden and forced by the will of the people to work on code they philosophically disagree with. This isn't how open source projects work. You cannot force volunteers to design projects the way you prefer. If you disagree you can fork and encourage other to join you. The developers are
n't our personal slaves that we can make demands from ... they are volunteers making very important contributions towards our ecosystem.
This is in strong contrast to the opposing view that Bitcoin should be governed top down by Core or that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics and eternal unchangeable principles.
Most of the developers are in favor of a diversity of repositories and implementations. This is very misleading.
I will get around to re-posting the conversation I had with gmaxwell here, I can show you exactly where this fundemental disagreement lies. I do actually agree with you though. Core can implement whatever they want to implement regardless of what the economic majority wants, however it is important that the economic majority knows that they do have this choice, and that they do not need to adhere to more totalitarian philosophies in regards to Core. This is a question of our political culture within the Bitcoin community, which I still think is going through a awakening and self realization. Which is why I also keep quoting RIP Rowan about how we can only lose our freedom if we become convinced to give up it. The same is true for pre-existing political theory, power always comes from the people, ultimatly it is the people that choose to give up their freedom, and once surrendered it is not as easy to regain.
To answer your question brg444, I will continue to support the Bitcoin network and respect the proof of work consensus. Bitcoin unlimited and Bitcoin XT still operate on the same blockchain as Core does, without a mining majority BIP101 will also not fork the network, we are still both part of the same economy. Therefore in the absence of BIP101 forking the network through proof of work consensus, I still de facto support any blocksize increase Core implements.