Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 23, 2016, 01:18:40 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 09:33:19 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 09:28:52 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 09:24:34 PM

OK, so this isn't principally about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF but a change in governance?

To me it is. I want decentralized development.

This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 09:28:52 PM

I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

Not sure why. Makes perfect sense to me.

Better than "best" would be completely separate implementations with separate code bases, preferably in separate programming languages. Separate teams evolving a common code base continues the risks of monoculture.