The only arguments I can think of in favor of "there should only ever be
one bitcoin blockchain ever and the governmental process is already decided
and cannot be changed" is that uncertainty is bad for the price, so if
you're looking at bitcoin as a get-rich then any challenge to the one true
chain is heresy. If you don't care about the price, the question becomes
"how inter-operable are the various chains". If I've missed the message
here, please correct me.

Mostly i'm surprised to see people on this thread in favor of the 'XT is a
coup" theory. Given that bitcoin is "neutral", which means different
things to different people, all of whom have different and sometimes
orthogonal needs from others using that same neutral system, Isn't it
inevitable that there will be more than one reference implementation of
bitcoin and potentially more than one active fork at some point in the
future if not resulting from some xt catastrophe.

There are enormous incentives that will push the community as a whole
towards not doing that, so if such a thing happens it means the reason to
do it outweigh the economic incentives pushing against it, at least in the
perception of those breaking away?

Also re: bitcoins governance model, Satoshi was a benevolent dictator who
gave that hat to Gavin when he left, who became the new benevolent dicator,
who used those powers and liberalized the process by adding more people who
can all fill the role of benevolent dictator either to enact something or
to stop it from being enacted. That would mean that having more than one
person with commit access is the step away from "the way things were done",
not somebody wanting to return to that model.

I don't care if XT or Core is "the official reference client' but I do find
it strange that this group of people would see XT as anything other than an
alternative that people will pick, or not, on its merits relative to their
needs and that this is a good thing because it means the current governance
apparatus has no monopoly whether implied or in reality.

I understand why people who are focused on making money from bitcoin price
appreciation see it this way but for those of us who are here because of
the *differences* *from* the current system rather than the *efficiencies
over* the current system should see this as a very positive sign regardless
of the outcome.

But maybe i've missed something?

Adam B. Levine
Editor-in-Chief
Let's Talk Bitcoin! <http://www.letstalkbitcoin.com/>

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:

> cody,
> http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan
>
> Cody R Wilson:
> > Explain the politics to me here.
> > On Sep 7, 2015 8:18 PM, "Amir Taaki" <genjix@???> wrote:
> >
> >> https://twitter.com/btcfoundation/status/639856958317707264
> >>
> >> Today’s shoutout is to @Blockstream who has funded more core dev than
> >> anyone, including us. Their knowledge & depth is extraordinary.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>