The faulty logic that he and others are pushing that leads you to believe this is the suggestion that any specific group of people does or should "control" the code. Even if BIP101 passed due to XT adoption, Core would be updated to support that long before it happened and people who don't like other aspects of XT would switch back to core, so "2 guys" wouldn't have "control" at all. However, by censoring and yelling "altcoin" he is actually supporting centralization by supporting "control" by "more than 2 guys".
OK, since it's a hard fork, to keep Core able to "follow" the blockchain it would probably have the BIP101 code aswell.
But that doesn't change that just really only two guys can make a soft fork or any other type of change that could affect only a XT-only blockchain. Mike is very clear about his "dictatorship" that if he and Gavin want it, they will do it, but of course, if even the BIP101 isn't well accepted then probably XT will die soon.
So, yes, they want to control, as of now, whole "XT Core" by only two guys. They want easier consensus reducing the amount of people involved, that's pretty stupid IMHO.
Any block size increase will be a hard fork and no hard fork has occurred regarding block size. Since there has been no fork, there is no "XT-only blockchain." If a hard fork were to occur and both chains were to survive, then bitcoinXT would no longer be bitcoin, my comments simply relay why I don't believe that would happen to begin with. If that did happen, then it wouldn't matter to bitcoin users, and the XT chain would likely die after being pumped and dumped. However, all of this is completely beside my point, which is that neither the Core Devs nor the XT Devs should nor do "control" the code, because in an open source environment, anyone with the right skillset can change the code as they see fit.
