Well, yes - let's do (anti-bitcoin style!) and concentrate on a single / central individual ( Cobra in this case) .. to betters split and bash ?
You say that, but you also say
you are free to believe what you want - If things go for Satoshi's Bitcoin - I'm with you.
that.
Isn't saying that you would only follow "Satoshi's Bitcoin" also a centralization phrase? That is the worst kind of attitude to have in Bitcoin. It's the same with how the Ethereum community follows Vitalik Buterin unquestionably like a god.
Bitcoin (Cash) has lots of perspectives - removing the max_block_size parameter from the consensus protocol level might be just the lowest hanging fruit here.
That does not make it better.
Why does nobody really know how many Satoshi was ?
Is that your argument? Really?
IMHO this is Bitcoin > we should not care of single guys here, get the thing decentralized as much as the competition allows.
Then drop the argument about "we forked to bigger blocks because we are following Satoshi's vision". Satoshi is, in essence, only a single guy. A centralization figure.
But if you continue arguing for "Satoshi's vision", then I will argue that "Satoshi's vision" is for the Lightning Network.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834752.0Freedom of choice
You make up your own mind, Cobra does, that's fine.
As long as it is about Bitcoin for the masses (un-banked inclusion) - fine with me
Figure out how much complexity of the base protocol is 'ok' to reach these masses.
Oh it is "freedom of choice" now. I thought you were following Bitcoin Cash because of "Satoshi's vision". When you finally realized that you are following a centralization figure, you back away and call it "freedom of choice". How convenient. Hahaha.
I have no problem if you choose an altcoin like Bitcoin Cash, but do not call it the real Bitcoin. It's simply not.
