Re: The Barry Silbert segwit agreement with >80% miner agreement.
I noticed that you had nothing to say about most every rebuttle I made except one that you found a tiny hole in. I'll take that as near-total victory.
However, I'll concede that you didn't make the direct link in this thread if you can concede that this is the common link people make. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you feel the problem is more widespread than one company. Hopefully you can see that so, too, are the core devs.
I speak to several of them on a daily basis and keep up with the linuxfoundation devlists. In doing so, I see more infighting between them than I do agreement by far. If they were financially incentivized to do something for their bosses, you'd expect to see more agreement on the attack against decentralization/freedom. That is actually pretty rare and I only tend to find argument about how decentralization can best be acheived.
Edit: I don't see any other teams around here even fighting towards that goal so why would anyone consider any team but the core devs?
You're almost to the point where you're no longer putting words in my mouth. Since you're a "journalist", I'd like for you to cite a single source where I've ever mentioned a singular relation between "Blockstream" and "core devs"
You haven't paid me so I don't see why I'd be inclined to do that research.However, I'll concede that you didn't make the direct link in this thread if you can concede that this is the common link people make. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you feel the problem is more widespread than one company. Hopefully you can see that so, too, are the core devs.
I speak to several of them on a daily basis and keep up with the linuxfoundation devlists. In doing so, I see more infighting between them than I do agreement by far. If they were financially incentivized to do something for their bosses, you'd expect to see more agreement on the attack against decentralization/freedom. That is actually pretty rare and I only tend to find argument about how decentralization can best be acheived.
Edit: I don't see any other teams around here even fighting towards that goal so why would anyone consider any team but the core devs?
I never said, or implied, that Core devs are beholden to "bosses" or some "centralized" anything.
Core devs (and by this I mean the ones that "matter", hold the most "control" over what Core is/does, and derive a "living wage" from it) are beholden to Core (and the "living wage" they get from it).
The more wallet choices that exist is the less relevant any one wallet is.
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must maintain the historical relevance as well as the relevance of Core in the future.
If Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) do not maintain future relevance, Core's "power" in/over Bitcoin will become something of only historical value (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it will no longer do so).
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must maintain the perception of "innovation" (even in the absence of any).
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) cannot survive the future, intact, if Core ever looses the foothold control of being "the" maintainer(s) of the protocol.
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must look out for Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) first, and foremost.
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must maintain the status of Core and "if that happens to be good for Bitcoin as a whole, great; if not, meh"....