... If anything, Litecoin has a lot more democracy than Bitcoin, and likely because of that SegWit got activated so fast and without any drama. In my opinion, we can roughly equal the level of "democracy" in a coin to how well it is decentralized, i.e. the more decentralized a coin is, the more "democratic" it will be. Obviously, Litecoin is a clear winner if we take that as the basis for comparison with Bitcoin
I see nothing democratic or decentralized about segwit and LN since they both go together.
You need a third party to administer LN and that means a governing central body is being introduced into crypto which is exactly what Satoshi tried to remove.
I'm all for bitcoin unlimited, let's increase the block size and continue being decentralizedWas that sarcasm or am I missing something?
The big blockers are criticized specifically for making Bitcoin more centralized in practice (despite what they themselves claim). Big blocks lead to more expensive operation of full nodes, so less people will be running them and thus more power will go to miners which means more centralization. Apart from that, larger blocks require more time to propagate across the network, so the Chinese miners will get an undeserved advantage (due to accumulation of hashing power), up to a point where one miner can generate blocks so big that he can spend considerable time finding the next block while the previous one is still in the wires, so to speak. I don't really know how that could be interpreted as "continuation of being decentralized"