Yes they are the stewards because it has not been hard forked away from them yet. If someday the Bitcoin Unlimited developers gain all the hashing power they need then they, for better or worse, become the new stewards of the Bitcoin network.
wake the hell up there have been many implementations running on the network for years
core only came into existence in 2013
core want to be the stewards. and are playing social politics to try getting that. but core nor anyone else should be.
other implementations want a diverse decentralised network.
AKA PEER network of many 'brands' all on the same level playing field.. and yes if core was dynamic then core can be on that same level too..
its core refusing to do what the community want. and while core refuse.. the other brands are happy to just plod along WITHOUT setting deadlines or agenda's or PoW nuke threats..
of any dynamic implementation wanted to do anything forcefully outide of consensus.. they would have done so already.
but look at core.. wanting their control in a month with their "hope its active by christmas" and now just 6 months in throwing all the weapons to force they way to the top. if you cant see how desperate blockstream are to get what they want then atleast look at the $70m debt they have to repay soon and atleast ask HOW they intend to repay it to then question their rash motives.
wake up and stop thinking that a core controlled TIER network is good
are you even a bitcoiner? or a fiat loving blockstream partnered guy..
seems you are becoming more engrossed in getting blockstream defended then bitcoins peer network defended
EG
everyone should be a steward to prevent anyone from claiming outright steward control.
this may not sound clear to grasp, but then so is
' you are unique, ....... just like everyone else"
nodes themselves should be choosing the rules based on what rules logically make sense and what the community want. there should be free and open choice. not a blockstream or get nuked mandatory slavery