Hu ?  No - if Bitcoin is centralized the value is 0.  NOT possible. You have game theory aligned here and repulsive forces in place.

This makes no sense.  Anyone can run a node.
True.  Your thread may be overrun with generic comments about Bitcoin Cash soon.

---

I agree with your point, to some extent.  Bitcoin is a permissionless system, and it's important to recognise that Bitcoin Core does not have infinite power, nor should it have.  I do think that people sometimes misunderstand how consensus works by smearing any proposals not approved by Bitcoin Core as an "attack" on BTC.  Meuh6879 created a nonsensical thread here, which neglected to mention that BIP 91 would not cause a chain split straight away and compared it to a mining pool having >51% of the hashrate.

However, the development team's reputation is extremely important in deciding whether to support a proposal, considering that we're dealing with a >$40,000,000,000 network here.

After all the securities scams from 2013, altcoins scams from 2014, we entered the ICO scams and the next thing is going to be bitcoin fork scams.

These people will try to hijack bitcoin brand and even attack bitcoin with spam transactions and DDOS services.

Prepare yourself, at least we can dump them to the floor.

Just a very logic  aspect:  If your point 2. was fully true, why all the effort with others solution ?  This is too costly to do just for fun.

Thing is, many will argue against that there was too much 'ignore' on the on-chain scaling input there from very few people. I see this point and this needs to be opened up very neutral - again Jeff I see as a good mate - same issues have been solved in Linux same good manner.

As I just pointed out, BCC is not an attack on Bitcoin.  Anyone can create a fork of Bitcoin - if they were all attacks on Bitcoin, Bitcoin would have died long ago.

As for hijacking the brand, there is some merit in that argument - but I think that people are letting their opinion get in the way of a neutral judgement.  When the similar fork BitCore happened, people did not perceive it to be an attack on Bitcoin, but by this poor logic it would have been.

There is nothing that Bitcoin Cash could do to "take over" Bitcoin.  The two chains will act solely on market forces.  Even in the unlikely scenario that Bitcoin Cash ended up with a higher price, it would not have taken over at all.  As for hash rate, it will eventually move along with the price when there are two chains, sooner or later.
As long as the code is open source and anyone can contribute to the development team's code, it's fine for one team to develop the reference client.  There should definitely be competition and people should definitely recognise that other clients exist, but there are problems with having too many implementations at once.

Satoshi mentioned this as well:


What people need to know is that development teams do not have real power.  Development teams just develop, and Bitcoin users/miners/nodes decide what code to follow.  So different proposals do not need the support of Bitcoin Core.