Quote from: iamnotback on March 21, 2017, 07:49:34 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on March 21, 2017, 12:38:28 PM

On the protocol side, bitcoin got just more decentralized with the fight between classic, Core and BU, because it wasn't and there was leadership, but there isn't much any more, which is good.

The ability of miners to 51% attack the protocol is not decentralization. To paraphase Benjamin Franklin in our context, those who would trade a huge loss of decentralization in the functioning of the protocol for a tiny morsel of decentralization attacking the protocol immutability, deserve neither decentralization nor protocol adaptability.

I agree with you that protocol decentralization (like all of decentralisation) is just a TOOL to obtain desired properties:
- immutability
- permissionlessness

As long as Core was de facto guaranteing immutability (of the important part) of protocol, the centralisation in their hands was not a problem. Now that they want to actively use their power, the decentralization works, in the following sense:
with all these struggles NO protocol change will actually happen. That was the goal. Bitcoin's protocol became truly immutable because of decentralisation. The fight between BU and Segwit is just this immutability dynamics at work.

Quote

The root problem is that Satoshi's design isn't sufficiently adaptable without centralized control.

Amen. But as it should be. A crypto should not change. Just rise and die.