Bitcoin has less foundation- or team-based leadership that have plagued other crypto projects. This leadership (eg Ethereum foundation) gives crypto projects the air of legitimacy, but also the impression, as Hinman put it, that some managerial work and direction is expected, tipping the scale towards security. If the network becomes decentralized to the point where no one party has sway over its direction (even a go…
It's designed that way, but it has been attempted before: under the guise of that name, no less. I just saw Charlie Schrem on a live stream a while ago, and he strikes me as the person who best represents those conmen. Many have falled by teh way side, others in to utter irrelevance, and then imbeciles like Bruce Fenton refuse to go away and still clings onto his 'foundation status' as though that gave him any legitimacy as he runs for office.
I'll just say this: Bitcoiners, especially early adopters, don't have any tolerance for these pseudo-thought leader BS, and nothing irks us more when someone tries to speak on behalf of the community. We vote with our hashing power and our nodes, nothing else matters. We may disagree about specific things, like LukeJRs refusal to let go of his smaller block idea, but the truth is this is a cohesive unit it that is bound by self-interest as much as is its about a central ethos: it's the most resilient community I've ever been a part of and I value it most because of it's refusal to be co-opted despite its MANY attempts, even by people who calling themselves a 'chief scientist' and was 2nd only to Satoshi--who I will remind you appealed to the community to not 'kick the hornet's nest' and then did exactly that in regards to using BTC to fund Wikileaks.
> even a good one eg the move to proof of stake
You lost all credibility here.