We've already deflected many attempts to centralize Bitcoin in form of Bcash, Segwit2x and other forks, so the future doesn't seem so bad.
what you dont realise is that only 35% wanted segwit.
so by deflecting away opposition with things like REKT campaigns and mandatory forks that use threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks. is actually making the community more one sided to one group.
replace the word decentralisation with diversity and you'll see where REKT/USAF went wrong and done the opposite of what you presumed in the quote above
the last 2 years has been like the apartheid. by saying anyone that doesnt like the BS-Cortel must be black and they most sit at the back of the bus or get out of town. all so that whites can expand and distribute their purity.. and then say that white supremacy is diverse. and that blacks, asians, are invaders that want to take over..
anytime you see anyone say "if you dont like X feature of bitcoin F**k off.. and play with something else" that is centralisation.
might be worth you learning consensus and realise that consensus has not been used in the last 2 years to decide on new rules, new protocols, its just been sheep followed in or made mandatory
you might also learn that those wanting segwit are actually the same guys that paid bloq to do segwit2x and the mandatory bilateral split(UASF threats).
the august 2017 proved that a central group can push through what they want. and push any opposition off the network
bitcoin DATA is DISTRIBUTED.
bitcoin Token ownership(privkey) are DISTRIBUTED
but the rules protocol has become centralised, everyone follows one teams rules forced in at august 2017 and milestoned in november 2017
(distributed and decentralised are not the same thing)
oh and wait until LN roles out the factories(fortknox) and where people cant just push payments to anyone. but need other parties authorisation. then it may dawn on you that those paying people like Luke Jr to say bitcoin is broke and LN is key. are the ones centralising bitcoins tokens.
then comes pruning the blockchain data before a certain checkpoint becomes centralising the data. where only a select set of nodes remain archival.
then comes confidential data and schnorr which hides if all parties of ownership agreed to move funds and hides how much is moved. thus taking away the open transparency of decentralised auditing the data, whereby nodes just blindly accept data, knowing less about what they are accepting.
then comes revocations which allow those who funded a managed transaction to have their funds revoked not just using LN revocation but the previous mentioned Schnorr
but before replying to defend them. research consensus and research what bitcoin really is. and please dont bother defending a team. because by defending a team your not defending a decentralised bitcoin. (you will literally fall into your own hole you dig by defending a team)
then while still not ready to reply with an accurate observation of decentralisation. try seeking out another full node software that has its own proposals and open coding that has not been rekt/forked away or part of the same group as "the reference client".
and when you realise any other node base is just sheep following a "reference client"(you know what i mean) then you will see how centered it all is.
i know i know you are probably going to defend a team by saying they are the best and they deserve to control the future direction of bitcoin. but just listen to yourself when you think that. listen to what your saying.
you dont need to rebut my words to try proving to me that a reference client team is essential. what you are saying is that you secretly admit the central team. you admit you love the idea of pushing any opposition to that central team away is good for centralisation. and you admit that what you hope for is distributed but centralised. rather than real decentralisation
