I see you're still aiding the communist NGO's and confusing their takes with your own.

Hercules

> lot of testing work that happens on Core

It can be done on another repo that doesn't usurp the legacy, but would also need less testing if it didn't churn as much as a frivolous app... Bitcoin's value is derived from it being stable and resistant to change.

> compartmentalize

Indeed, it'd be better if Bitcoin was looked at as distributions moreso than implementations. Libbitcoin is an effort to make it libraries, HORNET, and at least one other I scrolled by recently... also BTCD is a great example of a stable alt-implementation that powers a ton of nodes, but as a library, via LND.

> Knots

Unfortunately controlled opposition that's making a clown show of otherwise justified Core resentment

> avoid chain splits

A default distribution in Core is actually a bigger risk, most updates are downloaded blind. This presents a risk of widely distributing a bad version that splits with older versions. With more diversified distributions, the impact of a bad update/alt would be small... more frequent issues with individual, less severe as they'd be irrelevant to the broader network... like a controlled burn.

Core exists at this point only to turn Bitcoin into a Politburo that can be captured by the Courtier

There's zero excuse for there to still be a "default" repo in Bitcoin that undiscerning people turn to on account of its legacy

The only Pro-Bitcoiner move the Core repo can make is to archive itself and force the uninitiated to actively choose a distribution #ArchiveCore

That's the Core position, Loops bip has overwhelming support and dissent is banned or shadow edited