Quote from: Kprawn on March 25, 2016, 08:39:08 AM

For me it comes down to trust in this regard and not to the technical advantage both of these implementations have. Less than a year ago, Gavin and Mike Hearn pitched up here and dropped XT on us.

They had ulterior motives then, and it was quickly picked up by the more technically incline people here... Mike threw a temper tantrum and left to go work for the competition and Gavin were left with a

empty bag. His only option was to distance himself from XT and to submit a new implementation that would get better support. So he quickly put 2 and 2 together and saw a lot of people were asking

for bigger block sizes. He then jumped in with a implementation to address that. {Because he knew a lot more people will support that} ... On the other hand... The Core developers had a full deck of

cards from the start, and came in with a whole set of solutions for a lot of our problems. { SegWit / Side chains ..... } I will go with the people with a long term vision.... not just a short term solution to

regain control over the development.. a so called power grab. Roll Eyes

How come should there be a power to grab in an open source project? Writing code is power? If no one use their code, programmers have no power over anyone. It is the crowd thinking that they must use so called "core" software give programmers power. But core is not a registered company, neither a trade mark, anyone can call themselves core. Architecture wise, any bitcoin software can be called a "core" software: Blockstream core, unlimited core, classic core, XT core etc... because their architecture is the same. However I don't see how segwit can be called "core" since it is totally another architecture