Look right now the situation is 1 for profit private company controlling the protocol by controlling the reference implementation. My proposal is to move that to a non profit and transparent one that funds other projects. There will be no foundation client. Yes there are many projects but few get used. Unlimited almost had majority but got fucked by closed door deals.
By the way that whole personal attack rather than talk about the idea is the usual move by the fanbois and core. You have 2 options private for profit or transparent non profit. It's really not that hard. Looking for the perf solution and not changing until you find it will kill a project rather than constant improvement.
i still don't get why we even need a "company" that is involved with development of a decentralized system. whether it is blockstream or your proposal of so called non-profit one.
as for your example (unlimited) it didn't fail because it was a different group working on an implementation, it failed because it was a different group trying to change bitcoin and also take over the project in their own way. so they failed. and when they did they created the centralized BCH instead.
Look you have a choice between open transparent lead or private. Society will always have power centralize that's just how people work. Of course i want a decentralised governance but until we get that id rather that be with a foundation than a for profit company.
~
I still think we need to tread carefully with this supposed "takeover" narrative. It's all just some different ideas that didn't make the cut. The moment you call it a takeover, you are implying there is someone to take over from.
not necessarily, although i get what you are trying to say but what i saw from the scaling debate was that most of it wasn't about scaling bitcoin, instead it was about different groups trying to fight over who gets to become the bigger force and have their implementation run by users and kick bitcoin core and those working on it out of the market. when looking at their arguments 90% of them weren't discussing the scaling proposals, they were instead only talking about how core devs are corrupted!!! i call that a takeover not "an idea that didn't make the cut".
That's why I'd rather a foundation for this that funds other projects than have its own client like the eth foundation do and work for the protocol not the implementation.
