It's the sign of someone who's tired of arguing with buzzword/soundbite zombies.
You just called Bitcoin centralized and BCH decentralized with a straight face. You're not worth arguing with. Those are INSANE comments completely disconnected from reality.
That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth. Reread what I said.
"BTC is centralized via a handful of Bitcoin Core developers/maintainers and the company Blockstream." ... "Even BCH is better decentralized by node software and CHIP upgrade proposals in practice."
Hello?
I'm referring to specific aspects. I didn't paint broad brushstrokes like your are saying. The distribution of BCH *node software* is among 3 different main versions vs BTC 99.9% using Bticoin Core.
What is more decentralized 1 or 3?
As for NIPS they only pass if Core greenlights them. While CHIPS in practice is more open and anyone can introduce one and anyone can vote. What is more centralized one gatekeeper or all major stakeholders?
https://github.com/cashtokens/cashtokens/blob/master/stakeholders.md
Bitcoin development is centralized. Decisions and the political marketing for them, are made by core devs whom other non technical people trust. Many of these devs have historic ties to Blockstream or other large institutional investors. This are the institutions with the funding to back research into and maintain bitcoin.
The only proof you need is seeing who stands to lose the most from bip300, Liquid, and how those connected to blockstream argue against it. But there is other proof too.
So i ask you, how are decisions to improve bitcoin made ? and how is this different than the college of bishops in Rome ?
Drivechain allows the free market to decide what bitcoin does, each user gets to decide, on a seperate layer fromncore bitcoin that remains mostly the same going forwards in time.
