Also, it's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not, because it's not going to change the fact that we have a free and open system where anyone can modify the code as they see fit and users are free to run whatever code they want.
Well, that's the end of your argument, isn't it.
Because several attempts have already been made to release code that, okay, doesn't steal the project, but destroys the network the project runs on, in favour of a re-designed network. And the XT attempt included code to prevent future hard forks that weren't Hearn approved. And no-one bought the premise that either of those protocol redesigns offered something valuable, and so the fork didn't happen.
And I'll stand by the market making that decision. But you have to stand by the fact that the market could make a different decision in future and that Core's implementation may not always be the consensus. Or admit you're a protectionist apologist. One of the two.
Don't you think it may suit your free-market rhetoric better if I was allowed to choose from a range of options that aren't narrowly defined for the benefit of your argument?
And your "and I'll stand by the market's decision" comment is just dripping with conceit. You know as well as I do that XT and Classic were about control of the repo, not about some technical design dispute.
You keep suggesting developers of alternative clients should pursue their own chain because you're terrified of a little competition on this one. I'm suggesting that post fork, all developers are welcome to tag along, follow the longest chain and keep releasing their own clients, that, while compatible with the new consensus, can still propose changes to the rules of the network. Post fork (whether soft or hard), it's not a zero-sum game if dev teams are willing to carry on competing. Free and open. Glorious.
Why would anyone need to compete with Bitcoin on it's own chain if their coin is better?
Why don't you believe in a real competition, you know, where there are more than 2 players on the court playing simultaneously? Ever seen a tennis match where one player serves an ace to the other, and the match is immediately declared won?
You're suggesting that the Bitcoin user base bets the farm on an untested codebase, never operated in the wild, running an entire economy? Can you see why a rational Bitcoin user wouldn't be interested in experimenting like that?
It might just be a more rigorous approach to never bet on contentious forks, and just bet on promising altcoins instead. Because if the market makes a poor choice of fork, that altcoin is going to be all you've got left.