Quote from: danielW on December 14, 2015, 04:34:34 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 14, 2015, 04:13:42 AM

I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically. In contrast I am strongly opposed to the governance model that Core is presently advocating, I consider it to be totalitarian in nature.

And what is their understanding of how bitcoin should be governed?

Mike said Bitcoin core needs one person at the top a 'benovelent dictator' who should be Gavin. Thats what he intends for XT.

... but only after core dies which he said needs to happen.

Coinbase also want Gavin as benevolent dictator to head bitcoin development (not one implementation but the whole protocol), thats what they said (paraphrasing).

You like that view on governance? You consider that view less totalitarian in nature?

Thanks but no thanks.

I prefer cores open, inclusive, cautious if maybe slower approach. It has worked very well so far and Bitcoin has been improving, and growing very well under that model.

You are arguing a straw man here and you are creating a false dichotomy. I am not saying that we should choose between one dictatorship or another in the form of a single client implementation. I am arguing that the way it should work is that we have multiple client implementations that people are free to choice from. Having an election with only one option is not really an election at all is it, that would be the very definition of totalitarianism. Furthermore I can also argue that Bitcoin's Unlimited internal governance mechanism will be superior to both XT and Core.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation