You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree), or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.
False dichotomy.
It is not a false dichotomy at all, it is not a false choice, it is a case of consistence. We need to choice between these two positions because they are contradictory, both can not be true at the same time.
Some people do not understand yet that it is not the case of choosing one implementation over another to rule over us. But that it is a case of having multiple implementations for us to freely choose from, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. The three most popular alternative implementations are all compatible with each other after all, only Core is incompatible with a blocksize increase, even if the economic and mining majority wants a blocksize increase.
Straw man as usual.
It is not a straw man argument because I was saying that some people think that adopting another implementation is the same as just choosing a different group of developers to rule over Bitcoin, that is not the case since it is more about distributing this power, not centralising it more or moving the central point of control. This is not a straw man argument since I am responding accurately to what other people have said on this thread.
You guys are good propagandists (and shills).
It is not productive going around calling people shills without evidence. It would be better to focus on the content of peoples arguments instead.
What part of 'you are free to fork off' do you disagree with?
I do not disagree with this notion and I will not carry out a straw man argument by claiming that you have said otherwise. As far back as I remember you have been consistent on this point at least. There have been other people however that claim that we should not be free to fork and or that Bitcoin is not free. These are the types of totalitarian arguments I have been arguing against.
I say you are free to fork off - you reply Blockstream is totalitarian.
I consider their mentality and actions to be totalitarian, fortunately the rest of the community is starting to see that now.
I say after a blockchain fork, you end up with an altcoin - you reply no, miners decide what Bitcoin is.
If you think that the economic and mining majority forking Bitcoin in order to increase the blocksize turns it into an altcoin then that is fine, I will stick to the definition in the whitepaper and say that the longest chain is what defines Bitcoin in this situation. Ultimately I do not even really care which chain gets the original name, it is just semantics. I just do not want to see the Bitcoin I hold and care about to be crippled by arbitrarily restricting its capacity, even if that leads to a split.
I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc
Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.
This brings me back to a very important point. If Bitcoin is what people accept it is, then it follows that if the majority of people want a two megabyte blocksize and we justifiably fork to express this will, then Bitcoin with a two megabyte limit is Bitcoin. This is the contradiction that has been pointed out to you in your position previously, which so far you have still failed to acknowledge.
And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.
Another straw man I suppose, I never said this. Genuinely rational people usually do not accuse other people of being shills without evidence. It does not strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it.