secondly... your missing the whole point..
NO ONE
NO ONE
not core not cash not one has economic claim to brand bitcoin
are you that ignorant of the meaning of decentralisation.
like the dollar if anyone says they want dollar... it must be asked
is that U.S dollar(USD) or A.U dollar(AUD).. like what happens in the fiat world to avoid confusion
if anyone says they want bitcoin... it must be asked
is that bitcoin core(BTC) or bitcoin cash(BCH).. like what should happen in the crypto world to avoid confusion
NO ONE
NO ONE
not core not cash not one has economic claim to brand bitcoin
are you that ignorant of the meaning of decentralisation.
like the dollar if anyone says they want dollar... it must be asked
is that U.S dollar(USD) or A.U dollar(AUD).. like what happens in the fiat world to avoid confusion
if anyone says they want bitcoin... it must be asked
is that bitcoin core(BTC) or bitcoin cash(BCH).. like what should happen in the crypto world to avoid confusion
So we're changing the definition of decentralisation to mean that completely incompatible networks get to decide what other chains call themselves? And everyone's cool with that? Awesome.
Get a clue.
You've got your decentralisation because you already can say BTC or BCH, but we are not calling the BTC chain "Bitcoin Core" just because you think it should be called that. You are completely broken in the head if you think otherwise. You keep calling it that if you want. The economic majority will continue to prove they can claim the Bitcoin brand because it will continue to be known as Bitcoin. Make whatever impotent and irrelevant arguments you want. It's not changing.
You are pissing into the wind.