Wrong. I'm saying consensus decides what is and isn't Bitcoin. Individual dev teams don't even enter into the equation.
the bilateral split was not consensus.
if blockstream/bloq did not do the bilateral split. then core would still be at 35%
thats the whole point..
it was not a consensus challenge
it was a contentious bilateral FORK where both sides went separate ways
again you are still pretending that core are the original and sole holder of "bitcoin" brand by saying what you are saying
It's not about Core you belligerent tit. How many more times do I have to say it? And yes, both sides did go their separate ways, but one of those sides was much bigger.
If BCH
had attracted a majority hashrate and a majority economy, I'd be here right now making the argument that BCH is Bitcoin. But I can't make that argument because they didn't attract a majority hashrate and a majority economy. Ergo, they are an altcoin and BTC is Bitcoin. It really is that simple. The numbers weren't on their side, so they don't get to be Bitcoin. They're something else and they need to get comfortable with that. So do you, it seems.
You can claim you think BCH is better than Bitcoin. You can assert that BCH is closer to Satoshi's vision. You can lavish whatever praise you want on BCH and their chosen direction. All of that is fine.
But it isn't Bitcoin. End of.
btc moved away from the single empire just as much as bch moved away from the single empire.
their is now no single empire. no one owns the empire or the branding.
not cores codebase of segwit and the roadmap that makes up BTC
not cashs codebase that makes up Bch
stop pretending cores protocol cores codebase, cores rules, cores features that make up btc own "bitcoin"
the bilateral split seen to that.
put it this way
if there was not a august 2017 bilateral split. and instead a consensus vote of a SINGLE network upgrade. then that single empire would retain the brand and all the opposing nodes would continue to run on the single network as a single nation
but the civil war/bilateral split. showed they both surrendered to walk in different directions. they both equally lost the battle of being a single network being "the bitcoin"
you want to prtend your not defending core by saying "btc" owns "bitcoin" solely and fully..
anyway i could take it one step further and we could argue all day about why should core even own the term BTC.
the network of CORE rules has no rights of ownership to the brand.. if you disagree and think the network of core rules should own the brand then you are just saying core own the network. because they are the maintainers and rule setters of that network.
if you still cannot see the loyalist spech you are making that cores rules should own "bitcoin" then you are too close to kissing cores ass..
take a few steps back..
if you cant see it still.. take a few more steps back
again you cant just say america gets to own brand dolar due to america having larger population.. thats the weakest defence of all and belongs as a punch line on a stand up comedy night..
it would be the case in a concensus situation.. but a consensus situation did not occur. so is meaningless
the reason its funny. because after a bilateral split.. you are saying if lets say it became extremely profitable to mine bitcoin xyz(random made up) and suddenly that random fork over powered core in hash rate.. would you then claim bitcoin xyz(random made up) is now the sole and only bitcoin
or would you still say bitcoin core(btc) was the real and only bitcoin
