Saylor once got asked "What's the biggest threat to BTC?" He answered "The developers" He is so scared of soft/hardforks, that he's trying to freeze the core development. But it's not him who decide, but we the plebs and node holders. That's why we have to hold & spend bitcoin to be the network. And Sailor will learn his lesson like Roger Ver.
Discussion
It is his right to do what he considers wise to do.
No one is denying his right. How could we even?
Gigi would say simliar things
we don't need to change it, they are both right on this point
we need more dev on payments and social network protocols
so, i'm getting to the bottom of this rah rah about saylor and CIA and shit
we don't need any significant changes added to bitcoin, this is actually true, and you don't want me to do the TL;DR because it's just true
what we need is a solution for payments that doesn't centralise - #lightning centralizes, look at it, it's centralizing, anyone can see this... it's just a replica of Visa, Mastercard and Western Union
we need a solution for payment layer that is decentralized
LN is not decentralized, there is efficiencies of scale in it, and that will lead to reduction of participant population numbers
it all sounds like a beat-up to me... i literally heard from the mouth of none other than Gigi exactly the same argument and i became convinced also - that bitcoin doesn't need improvements
and even today someone posted there is literally some axiom of engineering that systems that depend on greed are damaged by improved efficiency
so i'll say "no, we don't want bitcoin (as in software that interfaces to bitcoin protocol directly) innovation, tyvm, it's fine, fuck off, this is just another big blocker ploy"