Quote from: rizzlarolla on June 27, 2016, 08:55:42 PM

"And many other", please tell me a few.

There are many others i read about, but i dont know all of them, i`m not a tech expert.

Quote from: franky1 on June 27, 2016, 08:58:31 PM

same can be said for softforks

Softfork is not as invasive, and has far less power over bitcoin.

Quote from: franky1 on June 27, 2016, 08:58:31 PM

its only dangerous if one group of devs says no to cause contention by making it no longer a unanimous change by everyone... not due to any rational reason of what the users want. but purely about keeping a "political" grip of control of what direction only they want to take bitcoin.

in short.. if core released a 2mb or BU codebase.. then they could just let the users decide to take it up or not.. because all other implementations will work together
but by not releasing it they are limiting options and causing the controversy that actually makes a hard fork dangerous. and instead wanting to add code that takes bitcoin in a different direction and blackmail and bribe people into accepting core as the dominant central repo..

hard forks are only controversial because core is making it so

I dont see a problem here, the Core team so far has lead bitcoin very well. You cant just have the "people" vote on things they dont understand, you need experts, specialists, engineers , PhD's to lead in such a technological enviroment.

You cannot have babysitters or bartenders vote on bitcoin's technical roadmap