ok, now OP
do a list based on those names and how many lines of code they have committed into bitcoins code.

many people write they are 'bitcoin developers' i have even seen a few that simple grammar check documentation to claim they are bitcoin contributors/devs but actually dont do much, if anything

here you go windfury
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
it was on bitcoin.org
heres the link direct
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

to answer the big issue of consensus bypass (core control the network) and can bypass consensus


read it multiple times without a core defense cap on. but with a bitcoin consensus/security cap on
core are saying they can now change the way the network does things without needing community approval

seriously, thinking not validating signature is ok??!
seriously thinking one team should be allowed to trojan in(inflight SF) new code without network approval(consensus) is ok!?

if anyone says yes to both points then you care nothing about the bitcoin network security and only care that core should be the monarchs
shame on you

read what you said atleast 3 times and actually recognise the flaw in why you think a full node should not care
if you think not verifying signatures is cool and fine. then i pitty your lack of care for bitcoin security

lol
do you even read code. read bips

the august 1st event. was not about block format.
the event was about a FLAG. yea bitcoin mining pools could have been running bitcoin v0.10 and making legacy blocks on august 1st.(your failure to understand)

 but they were threatened with the mandatory consensus bypass that unless they just simply change a version number (not change block format that requires segwit code).. simply change a version number. they would get their blocks rejected

yep CODE WRITTEN BY DEVS WOULD KILL OFF BLOCKS

it was the mandatory code made by core devs (luke JR and others) that made it that even pools using NON SEGWIT NODES HAD TO (not voluntary) flag a version number to prevent their LEGACY BLOCKS from being rejected

then when the CORE CODE misleadingly activated segwit due to the FAKE VOTE induced by the mandatory threat. weeks later would mining pools actually have to run segwit format blocks

it wasnt an opt-in. it was a stick this bumper sticker on your car to say your a fan, or get off the core road

mining will never be an issue

1. when its too expensive to mine. people then buy coin instead of waste money on electric.
(this keeps prices relative to mining)

2. even if there was only 1 asic on the network. blocks will still be made.

3. pools dont just switch off instantly. they slowly power down, which then leaves the remaining miners getting a bigger slice of the cake now theres less participants. meaning more profit as its less diluted/shared out

mining is a non issue so dont worry. as long as bitcoin is useful people will mine

bitcoin is BULL
2016 > 300
2017 > 900
2018 > 5800

what i think the OP should be asking is.. how often to the calves(small bulls) and cubs (small bears) play around up and down the mountains and hills of temporary playtime inbetween

squatter. so much fail in your statements i think your just twisting things for entertainment

saying that a full node not signature validating deserves a "so what" response. goes to show you dont even understand the concept of being a full validation node.

as for saying one node sends an output to another node.. shows you dont understand what gets transmitted or the whole blockcreation, relay, validation. process

why oh why are soo many of the core defenders so lacking in basic concepts yet keep circling the same social drama play of meandering and bear poking.

squatter you might have better luck joining a kardashian fan club if your just going to follow the same tactics of the other guys.
have a nice day

but anyone the 90% coin hoard is just a theory/scenario/concept question

lets take a more recent practical thing to talk about.
the merchant puppetry and paid devs by a corporation

http://dcg.co/portfolio

let the corporations pump and dump the market. if their only tactic is to pump and dump.
we will sell to them for high. let them dump and we buy back at a discount.

hoarding 90% does nothing. and once they start handing out a 90% their 90% becomes 89% 88% 87%... all the way down until they are back to zero..

so just being coin holders/pump and dump is meaningless alone. and can make investors alot of profit while they temporarily play with prices.

like i said. coin hoarding affects nothing.. its the code and rule changes that matter. which is more about influencing the influencers, merchants and devs

the github changes stats are meaningless.. the majority of core changes are not for bitcoin network benefit. but to mutate bitcoin for LN network benefit.

that article has so main fails in it

1. bitcoin cash didnt not cause the bilateral split (consensus bypass on august 1st).
even the blockchain data can prove that by looking at the time stamp on the blockchains of which first made the diverting block(split)... (psst hint: it was core.. cash didnt even roll out until hours later. even the segwit fans made a big deal that cash didnt make a block for hours.. so how could cash instigate something if they couldnt even make a block to cause a controversal split(logic prevails over social drama tricks))
also the mandated USAF and the NYA were node shuffling tricks on the core network side..

2. people like ver are not coders. so thats a funny. you know.. its obvious.. oh wait. lets spell it out. ver didnt code it so how could he cause it.(he is just a social drama PR guy, not a dev)

3. cash is another network, they cant affect the core network so a year later people finger pointing at them .. makes no sense. do people point fingers at clams and worry clams is a threat?

the whole kardasian family drama of core vs cash is just a misdirection. just a ploy to not let people see what core actually did and instead of pointing to code proof. the finger pointers just point to the social drama of peoples faces, such as a video screen shot of a guy sticking up his middle finger (wow mega proof of code modification can be found in some pr guys middle finger)

to much attention is given to social drama tricks. yet it seems as soon as people talk about code, network protocol changes, all that happens in reply is mud slinging of insults. and more finger point of social drama of if you dont support core f**k off its their software let them control the network(facepalm)

if you think the only choice option is bitcoin core or bitcoin cash. then your still not seeing the bigger picture.
my main gripe is too many people think the only option is cores roadmap or F**k off

as others have said. start your own blog. do your own youtubes. even find local meetups and build some rep
once you have something people can visualise and recognise as words worth hearing in more detail then you can start expanding out.

its useful to start small such as local meetups in your area. and start creating your fanbase that can spread the word

just be sure to not be a sheep follower repeating words already said. try to be mind blowing and putting a novel and mind opening thoughts into people heads. because just repeating the status quo of follow the leader speaches wont get you far.
lastly dont get into the trend anal talks of market price..
th market price is temporal. what might be valid today wont be valid tomorrow so, stick to technical and innovation topics that can aspire and inspire people for more than just the day.. then you will gain many fans and requests to be a speaker

bad strategy
NEVER EVER BUY HIGH

seriously only buying AFTER the price has risen by more than 20%!! (facepalm)

also the first sentance that bitcoin rises continuously over a week.. (you earn a double facepalm)
bitcoin moves in daily and weekly waves of ups and downs.

its the yearly rise people notice.
2016 >300
2017 >900
2018 >5800

what the OP is actually proposing is users pay him funds.. he then blows peoples funds to try to cause a spike so that he can sell HIS OWN STASH at tip of spike while then left the people that paid him with the losses when the spike corrects down(going below the buy in price he pushed)

.. thats if the OP even intends to give back any returns (as his scheme seems so very dodgy in the first place)
OP seems very lacking of economics and dare i say it ethics from what i read

hoarding 90% of coin is hoarding.. inaction.. meaningless. EG has the 2009 stash of coins influenced anything.. nope.

as for spending the coin to influence. if it was done just to market crash.. then so be it. once a hoarder spends, they are out. and new people buy coin at discount. so win for the buyer. thats just price drama and not network control.
market crashing the price is just temporary drama and not a permanent uncorrectable change

but code changes which merchants accept is a uncorrectable change..

the only way a 90% hoarder can influence is to incentivise merchants and devs by paying them bribes to do things a certain way. and pay them privately away from market influence thus not affect the price and keep the merchants and devs interested in changing things.

but all in all it circles back to the main change makers. merchants and devs, as they have the ultimate control. pools and users are just followers

all pools can do is decide to include or exclude particular transactions.
if they even dared to submit a block that doesnt fit the rules. that block gets rejected in 2 seconds.
pools are not rule setters. they are followers. and it doesnt matter how much electric/hashpower they have.. a rule break is a rul break no matter what

now with all that said...
i am not worried about "government". its the corporate elite that are corrupt. EG wall street caused 2007 not government
wall street strong armed government for bail out.. the government didnt plan to screw people

(P.S i am not a fan of government but open minded to stand back and see the big picture then step forward to point out the real flaw)

so its corporate/capitalist control thats more of a concern than govrnment (people still drank beer in prohibition, so dont worry about government)

we have seen its corporations that raise fee's and get greedy.

..
it doesnt actually require hoarding most coins to control things. it actually involves controlling people. (merchants and devs)
the code acceptance deciders

pools and users are not deciders. they are followers.
pools have to make blocks that fit the rules. and the rules(devs) have to fit the needs of the main group that will accept payment and offer products and services(merchants)

now after showing the math that the IRS could easily accumilate alot of % of hoard.
there ar also things like lightning factories, which USERS put in X and as the funder circle around in circled from factory to channel, get spent(user holds less) and settled back to factory with users having less.. and repeat repeat repeat

to a point where general public only hoard 10% left overs
the end result is that although alot of coin is now hoarded.. the network CODE has not changed.

the main thing would be the devs changing the CODE to benefit the IRS/LN factory merchants who have most of the spend ability decisions.

EG if 20 main merchants/exchanges said no to a new CODE change. then the code change shouldnt happen. because pools wont use a code that means they cant spend their coins with the top merchants.
users wont spend their coins using a code change which doesnt allow them access to merchants.

so what you will find is users and pools usually follow the money and follow the main merchants decision that allows the users/miners to be able to continue using their coins..
there no point accepting code which stops your spending habits. and no point denying code which merchants do adopt, again preventing spending if you oppose the merchants

so the oligarch would get merchants on their side and then get bitcoin code changes implemented that benefit the oligarchy and main merchants

some think it is not a possibility. but think about it
imagine a merchant has $1m. and pays 20%  business tax  ..... IRS now has $200k
imagine the merchant then pays out salaries
the 800k goes to staff.. those staff then pay their income tax of 20%(160k)..... IRS now has $360k
staff spend the left over $640k to merchants


imagine merchants has $640k. and pays 20%  business tax($128k)  ..... IRS now has $488k
imagine the merchant then pays out salaries
the 512k goes to staff.. those staff then pay their income tax of 20%(124k)..... IRS now has $612k
staff spend the left over $388k to merchants

repeat repeat

.. now imagine the foolish notion of paying taxes in bitcoin. to give bitcoin to the IRS

bitcoin is not th bitcoin satoshi envisioned any more..(bitcoins ethos and original idea started getting twisted as soon as he left but most notably since 2013-14) when diverse decentralisation became more so central referenced but distributed.. they even emphasised that decentralisation was diminishing by calling themselves the "CORE"(center) team

the core devs are now in control and mandate their own roadmap plan. even when the community cant agree core still push their agenda through by bypassing consensus.

these team think blockchains are broke and cant scale. yet its their own code that has the limit which they refuse to move(starve your kid so you can eat on another network then blame your kid for not growing)

the other network the team desire so much is not a blockchain. its not even locked to only serve bitcoin. its a separate network for multiple coins and bitcoin has been manipulated to fit that network, rather than that network getting manipulated to fit bitcoin

things have changed since this team took over in 2013-14. and all it is doing is having them impose restrictions on bitcoin utility while they promote a totally separate network as the future of electronic payments.
.. but as you can read by the meandered topic of that teams defence social group. they dont like it if people talk about how bitcoin has changed to suit the corporate roadmap