satoshi left because he didnt want to be a point of refernce/decision. he wanted consensus to decide.

but bitcoin core replaced it and has been the thing people point to as the CORE, reference, decision, roadmap, moderated proposal route for all things bitcoin network

having mandated upgrades and moderation and treating other client software as the enemy that needs to be rekt or distorted as enemy until the only option is to altcoin those other clients off the network.. then its not decentralised.
claiming there are other full nodes is flimsy at best as they just blindly follow core

we need to get back to a level playing field where multiple pieces of full node full validating full archival software all have equal level as core.

core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules. and then let the community separately on their own have their own proposals. where they communicate to each other and if a feature is good and wanted then all the versions add it. and the feature gets activated when the community of various versions all have consensus.

core need to back off with the monarchy mindset. all the core devs should have their own releases and all contribute to what the community want. not a small pool of devs who demand users blindly follow one roadmap and treat anything else as a bad actor.

if some feature/software is bad, people just dont run it. simple. but to campaign that there should only be one and anything has to follow.. is not decentralised.

core should be P-1 not p+1 (p=proposal). you know where cor is just the blue print of basic design. and others then build ontop separately

It was his contribution to decentralisation. That does not mean it automatically prevents some other centralising influence arriving. It does set a precedent though and something for other people to look and commit to.

It's a tad tragic how little effort is put towards it elsewhere to the extent now that if you want a Binance listing you have to provide some coin contact number in case of problems. That means Bitcoin would not be able to get on Binance these days.

yes it makes sense, when the crypto founder is absent, making the coin does not have a founder or who has the number 1 authority to control the coin.

i don't see it that way. specially when it comes to an already centralized altcoin such as Ethereum. Vitalik came and created ETH and used it to make millions of dollars with its premine and pump and dumps. he clearly knows that the system has a lot of flaws in it some of which can not be fixed at all. and the system is doomed to fail eventually in the long run. this to me seems like he doesn't want to be around when that happens!

Decentralisation doesn't guarantee the success of a coin, just take a look at ripple which is vying for the number two spot. Litecoin survived without charlie lee and ethereum will carry on without vitalik

 Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized electronic money and central banking systems. The decentralized control of each cryptocurrency works through distributed ledger technology, typically a blockchain, that serves as a public financial transaction database.

I hope that Vitalik will indeed depart from the helm. For the last time, the fake news of his death brought down Ethereum by 30%! I think the publicity of the Creator is very bad for the coin. IMHO

And you don't get to forbid others to dictate/suggest what any group should do or what they need to do.  That's not how Bitcoin works...

We can do it all day long, or we could stick to the topics and stop projecting shit on others.

Back to the topic, then.  Do you get more decentralisation from a system one where no one is in a position of authority and there's no way to restrict others from creating the code they want to create?  Or a system where someone is in a position of authority and people can't create the code they want to create?  The general opinion presented in this topic so far is that Bitcoin is less centralised if there's no one in a position of authority and I agree with that.

Allude to my prior post being off-topic if you like, but I think it's quite salient to this particular discussion.  My point isn't that I want to forbid franky1 from trying to dictate things (because he's clearly free to fail at doing that all he likes).  The point is that while he claims he advocates a decentralised system where no one can restrict people from creating the code they want to create, his instinctive reaction to achieve that goal is to wish in vain that Core was restricted from creating the code they want to create (which could only happen if Bitcoin was more centralised and someone was in a position to enforce that).  I honestly don't see the harm in pointing out both the futility and the hypocrisy in that stance.

Bitcoin doesn't have centralised development or a "monarchy", it just happens to have a particular group of developers where many users choose to run that client because they believe it to be the best code available in the current market.  Consensus hasn't been "replaced" and it's still the users who ultimately decide what that consensus is.  There are no "mandatory code changes", there are only the rules enforced by the protocol (and again, it's the users who decide what those rules are).  The only way Bitcoin could work as franky1 describes is if it was more centralised.  

doomad

your defending core. not bitcoin
if you cared for bitcoin as a decentralised network. you would not care or need to worry or need to defend core. because core would not need defending

its not about restricting code they want. its about the code they want IS restricting others

do you see any code i wrote restricting core? no? ooooo so im not dictating code
do you see any bips i wrote that include mandatory activation dates? no? oooo so im not dictating anything mandatory
do you see any code i wrote that throws core off the network or makes core none functional? no? ooo because im not doing that

but look WHO is and look WHO you are defending
core have bips with mandatory activation. those bips have been used
core have code that restricts other nodes from doing things previously possible by non core nodes.
core have code that has thrown nodes off the network purely because they were not wanting the core roadmap

you are not defending a WHAT(network) you are defending a WHO(group of devs)
atleast recognise the difference and realise that you are not defending bitcoin but you are defending core.

in the last 9 years it has only been core devs and their buddies that have lead REKT campaigns. only core devs and their buddies that have supported mandatory activations and only core devs and their buddies that have added code to throw certain nodes off the network

as for user choice. show me a proper full validation, full archival, full node that is in no way affiliated with following the core roadmap, that offers their own community BIP gatway where users can offer suggestions of possible future features..
that does not involve moderated hop skip and jump(3 moderated venues to pass) to even get a chance to vetted into a client software

over many many many discussions i have used the term 'we need to go back to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of multiple implementations'.
why are you so afraid of that notion? does it go against your buddys roadplan?