Quote from: HeRetiK on March 31, 2018, 10:17:52 PM

Quote from: franky1 on March 31, 2018, 09:37:03 PM

bitcoin core cannot honestly say that they are the original either..
line for line of code bitcoin core is far from the original 2009-2014 codebase
and bitcoin cash does have more similarity

By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing.

Quote from: franky1 on March 31, 2018, 09:37:03 PM

but from the point of view of "the original".. neither are.. the fork split and 2 different codebases of rules were activated
though bcash has more lines similar to the original 2009-2014 codebase.. NEITHER are the original

Bickering about which implementation is closer to the "original" vision is pointless.

Bitcoin is what the community decides it is. At one point in the future it may be a different fork by a different development team. Currently the majority of the community has decided that Bitcoin as implemented by the Bitcoin Core development team is the canonical protocol version.

Quote from: franky1 on March 31, 2018, 09:37:03 PM

this is not about defending either. but to be realistic and to make people realise that bitcoin core. although 'distributed' is not decentralised
especially when pretty much every post above would secretly agree that if the code is not released by "team core"(centralised) then its not bitcoin

I personally chose BTC over BCH as the canonical Bitcoin blockchain due to assessing its scaling approach as the more viable one. This has little to do with the development team behind it, although Bitcoin ABC's incompetence in some parts of the development process didn't bode well either -- at least in my book. Other members of the community may have different motivations, of course.

Please expand on what you mean by distributed vs decentralized in terms of software development.

Quote from: franky1 on March 31, 2018, 09:37:03 PM

by even having the mindset that anything not core should be treated as an attack and as a future altcoin if it goes against the blockstream roadmap is an admission that bitcoin core is not decentralised.

Bitcoin is just a name. If an alt is viable, it will thrive long term, regardless of whether it's a Bitcoin hardfork, softfork or a different coin altogether.

Quote from: franky1 on March 31, 2018, 09:37:03 PM

while group A squabble and group B squabble. neither groups realised what was happening. they were both handing the reigns over to a centralised party because of "trust" "faith" "control"... all the things the bitcoin ethos did not need

the whole bandcamp argument was just smoke and mirrors to actually give a group control.
the whole treat unlimited as the enemy and then use the BScartels subsiduary Bloq to push unlimited out was under subdefuge of saying they are helping the community decide x1 or x2 was all part of the game

what should have happened was the community refused to enter the camp debate and instead relied on network consensus to unite teams to a compromise. not avoid consensus to hand over control to a single team via altcoin creating

Bitcoin's evolution worked out just as intended. The market decided. No need for trust, faith or control. Just permissionless currencies, competing on the free market. Nothing more, nothing less.

Regardless of where you stand in the blocksize debate and how Bitcoin should govern itself -- Many of the statements made in Bitcoin.com's Bitcoin Academy are simply factually incorrect. And that's what this thread is about.

i stand on neither side of any camp. which was the funny part of many years.. those standing on cores side kept trying to pigeon hole me into "the other camp" .. to me. there should be no camps.. if anything needs to be decided consensus will decide..
but consensus was not used.

as for your first statement.
"By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing."

no. because they were contributing.
funny part is the github now moderated by a single team is not the same codebase as satoshi's sourgeforge codebase. yep satoshi never used github.. but even though satoshi used sourceforge and others used github they all agreed and found compromises to work on the SAME RULES and evolve equally at the same time on the same network.

no altcoin was created because of indicision between the contributors back in satoshi's day. even when there were many codebase sources on many different platforms and many different languages.

but now that many deem only bitcoin core is the 'trusted' source of network protocol rule selection... thats all changed
as soon as the band camp aruments of 'if its not core its not bitcoin' started.. thats when decentralisation died