Bitcoin is in disarray due to an inability to set new rules

[fuzzy]

This may surprise some people but I don't hold many Bitcoins now. I'm looking to only put my faith in platforms which are democratic or which have ways of deciding on new rules.

If we thought of these blockchains as governments or as states, would you expect most people to choose to be the citizen of the state that doesn't give people a vote, which is designed to centralize to the point of absolute monarchy? Which can't change it's constitution or amend it?

Why would we design something which isn't at least as good at the nation states we have? Shouldn't we be trying to design something far better than what we already have?

Unfortunately Bitcoin seems to be taking us backwards, almost to point where developers are the high priests, and combined with a bunch of other unelected officials who can try to manipulate through censorship, bans, etc.

In my humble opinion, the current outcome proves that the Cato Institute was right. Bitcoin can't scale and will only get worse as it gets bigger, more centralized and more entrenched.

^^this
I've been saying this for so long when I describe the dangers of bitcoin. I believe that coupled with the centralization around its infrastructure (ASICs), makes a true technocratic regime that would make Brezinski wet his pants in happiness.

I sought out chains that give people the power...and that led me here. 

[luckybit]

This may surprise some people but I don't hold many Bitcoins now. I'm looking to only put my faith in platforms which are democratic or which have ways of deciding on new rules.

If we thought of these blockchains as governments or as states, would you expect most people to choose to be the citizen of the state that doesn't give people a vote, which is designed to centralize to the point of absolute monarchy? Which can't change it's constitution or amend it?

Why would we design something which isn't at least as good at the nation states we have? Shouldn't we be trying to design something far better than what we already have?

Unfortunately Bitcoin seems to be taking us backwards, almost to point where developers are the high priests, and combined with a bunch of other unelected officials who can try to manipulate through censorship, bans, etc.

In my humble opinion, the current outcome proves that the Cato Institute was right. Bitcoin can't scale and will only get worse as it gets bigger, more centralized and more entrenched.

[luckybit]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-18/bitcoin-is-having-an-identity-crisis

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/discussion-of-bitcoin-xt-banned-from-bitcoin-subreddit/

One of the major advantages Bitshares has that Bitcoin will never be able to have is flexibility. Bitcoin is static, it is a hard coded fixed protocol, it is at best a constitutional monarchy, and we see in this example the limitations of that when we look at the disarray over a fork.

Nomic is a game which the current players have a mechanism to change the rules.

Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.[1]

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.
—Peter Suber, The Paradox of Self-Amendment[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic

This ability is critical for evolvability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvability . Bitcoin has low evolvability because there is no democratic process, there is no futarchy, there is no rules within Bitcoin left by Satoshi Nakamoto on how create rules for changing the rules.

Bitshares has a long term advantage over Bitcoin which will continuously become more apparent. If we look at species, or at life in general, the lifeforms which are able to adapt the fastest, and the best, are the species most likely to survive. Bitcoin has low evolvability, which means in a Darwinian battle for dominance it will not be able to keep up with the rate of change.

Bitcoin has the first mover advantage, but due to it's limited flexibility, limited evolvability, it is unlikely to last. I expect my post to be controversial, but you can see for yourself as it plays out.

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/unfortunate-future-bitcoin
http://www.alt-m.org/2014/11/18/bitcoin-will-bite-the-dust/