Quote from: DooMAD on February 07, 2019, 07:19:40 PM

Please quote the part of the whitepaper where it declares the purpose of Bitcoin is to have a bunch of incompatible proposals in a constant state of deadlock, where no one is able to move forward with any new ideas.

While more diversity would be nice, it has never been a prerequisite. The level of diversity other users are willing to accept is yet another one of those things you don't get to decide for them.

Run what you want. Respect what others run. It's really not that hard.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
^ read it.. seriously, read it.. it seems you have not read it or you would have your answer
here are just some parts explaining that satoshi knew thr would be diversity and incompatibility

Quote

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains.

Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on
extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some
nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received,
but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-
of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other
branch will then switch to the longer one

Quote

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

^ this is about the orphan mechanism of consensus

.. care to wonder why core dislike diversity and kills off other nodes early. .. to prevent there being votes against their desires

the idea WAS that diverse nodes would aim to follow the active rules via remaining HONEST to ensure they got to spend their incentives. thus not causing orphans/rejects purposefully so that the majority stays with the mainchain
and only activating new rules when they had HONEST majority

Quote

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes,
..
He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

Quote

To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

but core instead want to ignore the consensus, and just get rid of competition early.
this making core become the 'trusted party' of code rules by having no competition thus no vote required(compatibility/inflight upgrades/mandated changes).

and yes you trust and admire and are devoted to wanting core to remain as a trusted group without competition

now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party