sheeeesh
Okay, I'll critique your ideas.
"Bitcoin needs no leaders, no board, no reform."
Do you know Bitcoin was lead by Satoshi for a while? Then by Gavin Andresen. With time, it decentralized, and yet it is not perfectly decentralized even today (nothing is). It has a core development team which has more influence than those who aren't on this team. That team changes with time, and the way it governs itself can and does change. The majority of hashpower comes from known, legally-registered entities. Singular corporate entities have and are acquiring material percentages of supply.
Am I making the argument that Bitcoin is centralized? I'm not. Bitcoin is the most decentralized economic apparatus on the world. But decentralization exists on a spectrum with many variables, and they change with time. It's nuanced and worthy of study and consideration. Bitcoin is not a holy thing, perfect and beyond critique or improvement. It has become increasingly decentralized with time (on most metrics), and hopefully this continues.
Vitalik could die tomorrow, and the EF disappear. What would happen? Would Ethereum go away? Obviously not.
Ethereum is *also* a decentralized project. Yet it is not identical to Bitcoin. In some ways it is more centralized. In others, it is less (should we talk about mining centralization? Should we talk about number of devs involved in the protocol? Should we talk about the number of implementations or apps built on it?)
You're right to praise Bitcoin as decentralized and wonderful. It is.
And if you want to levy targeted criticism of specific aspects of how Ethereum is structured or operates or is governed, that's perfectly fine.
But "targeted criticism of specific aspects" is not what maxis engage in, is it? Your original post above is the perfect example. Maxis cast the most obtuse, crude, propagandistic condemnations of anything that isn't Bitcoin. "Bitcoin is decentralized, everything else is a centralized shitcoin." This is absurd nonsense, unbecoming of any serious Bitcoiner, of anyone who is passionate (and principled) about these technologies.
You, and other maxis, come across as the worst kind of insecure zealots... praising national governments for their "strategic reserves" and cheering on custodial, permissioned companies, while condemning actually decentralized financial innovations.
You adore custodians that are proudly "Bitcoin only" while insulting as scams open-source apps that actually imbue the cypherpunk ethos. Look how the maxis have treated privacy coins... actual anonymity in finance, yet disparaged as shitcoin scams because you make no distinction between actual fraud and earnest technology.
To you, if it isn't Bitcoin, it's fraud. This is fucking retarded, emblematic of the most left-curve thinking that I'd expect from someone like Paul Krugman, not from any principled Bitcoiner.
You say you have principles? Okay, what are they, exactly?
To call Ethereum a "shitcoin trying to ride Bitcoin's coattails" is not a principled statement. It's maxi dogma, devoid of depth, accuracy, and honor.
And when it spews forth with such bravado from an operator of a centralized custodial KYC'd company, you simply embarrass yourself and deserve to be called on it.
Every decentralized permissionless app builder in Ethereum is doing more to advance the foundational principles of Bitcoin than any Bitcoin maxi with their gov-registered and state-regulated custodial service.
/endrant