Quote from: Carlton Banks on October 14, 2016, 01:59:04 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 14, 2016, 01:38:59 PM

Personally, I don't buy that, because again, you can't seize control when there's no one in control to seize it from. The miners and node operators are ultimately responsible for securing the network.

You're deliberately conflating control of the network with control of the code base, to derail discussion of this aspect of reality you dislike.

I'm not the one conflating things. Core developers are in control of the code in their own github. Nothing more. They are not in control of the original code released by Satoshi under the MIT Licence. Nor are they in control of the concept of Bitcoin in perpetuity. Core developers will always be in control of their own github. A fork to a competing protocol doesn't hand control of Core's github to outside developers. Whether a fork happens or not is determined by miners and node operators, so a hostile takeover by developers is not possible. All developers can do is release code.

Further to that, the latest version of Core's software is still released under the same MIT licence, which means the Core developers themselves are happy for people to modify their code. Clearly, though, it doesn't mean they are happy for anyone to submit any modified code to Core's own github and consider it part of Core's client without their consent. Core maintain ownership of that repository and decide who can and cannot contribute code, which is perfectly acceptable. So the only option for people wishing to modify the code, is to release their own clients.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on October 14, 2016, 01:59:04 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 14, 2016, 01:38:59 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on October 13, 2016, 11:24:24 PM

And people are, of course, entirely free to do all sorts of foolish things. Free choices are not necessarily good choices.

Huzzah! So we're in agreement that alternative clients have the right to exist and are free to compete on the current chain, even if you don't personally agree with what they represent. I withdraw my previous accusation, then, you're not a protectionist apologist like the OP.

Right. I extend my previous accusation: you're shilling for hostile takeovers, using specious or dishonest arguments.

I got the impression we had reached an agreement. I'll give you the opportunity to clarify your position, just to be sure. I asked if you would willingly take away the right of other developers to release their own code if you could. You replied "people are, of course, entirely free to do all sorts of foolish things", which leads me to assume that, while you might personally deem it foolish, you wouldn't restrict their freedom to do it. Ergo, alternative clients are free to exist and compete. Yes or no?