I find
this recent video of the
Daily Decrypt intriguing. It suggests that for bitcoin to achieve progress in the arms race that has become digital currencies, it'd need to establish some meaningful form of governance for development. I'm not saying that I agree with that statement but I haven't seen it being discussed.
With nothing but toxic debate coming out of the community for the last few months, it's not that surprising that some say it might be overtaken or reach hiatus.
Isn't the nature of the problem that there is a fumbling type of government - Core & Chinese miners - that large amounts of people aren't happy with?
I think it would take an awful lot for current users to jump ship, but there's probably an untapped appetite for something that may bring in enough new users to swallow up the old guard, most of whom are just in it for the money anyway and would jump ship too.
The hard core may be left behind but even a significant number of them want something that just works. If Bitcoin can't do that then they're going to shop elsewhere too. Question is whether any type of transition could be made without a general loss of faith.
Now that I think about this, back in the day the bitcoin foundation was funding core development we weren't faced with such schisms. Developers were always free to develop altcoins but the bitcoin community believed in unity. I don't necessarily agree with what's stated in this video as I do believe that bitcoin's development is already governed in a way. To be fair though, bitcoin is still developed and useful features are implemented at an acceptable pace. Development isn't slow, it's just that the system of development was destabilized. In my opinion, it was this destabilization that let Gavin Andresen to his misguided attempt to fork bitcoin with XT.
What matters though is that all this drama isn't helping bitcoin and certainly paves the way to make 2016 a very boring year for bitcoin.