Quote from: franky1 on April 05, 2017, 05:25:06 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 05, 2017, 01:52:15 AM

But who do you propose take over as the stewards of the Bitcoin network?

stewards of bitcoin??

get that centralist hat off your head right now!
there should be no stewards/kings

core want to control bitcoin and fear an open decentralised diverse peer network.

other implementations dont want control. set no deadlines demanded nothing and not making PoW nuke threats.

core is adement that they wont want to join many different brands on a dynamic peer network. where nods of different brands set the rules by independent consensus. core want their controlled TIER network

core want their back door exploit to slide in changes(by going soft) without nodes vetoing the changes

seriously get that "stewardship" hat off your head and think of the big picture

P.S blockstream(core) have admitted that going soft is using a backdoor exploit. and admitted they want to add more exploits to make it easier to go soft.

what becomes 'easier' for core.. is actually bad for the network as other can then use that exploit for more nefarious purposes

Yes they are the stewards because it has not been hard forked away from them yet. If someday the Bitcoin Unlimited developers gain all the hashing power they need then they, for better or worse, become the new stewards of the Bitcoin network.

Quote from: uchalkql on April 05, 2017, 02:14:41 PM

Via @VitalikButerin: Soft forks are coercive, anti-market:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5llba3/do_any_of_yall_ethereumers_support_the_current/dbwk1bb/

Is he trying to justify his decision to do a hard fork that brought forth to Ethereum Classic?