A good point of view, but there is a conflation here between participation requirement and control -- Yes, no one needs to run a full node. There will be those who decide to for a variety of purposes... however there is no monetary incentive to run a full node. Why even bring in the maximalist point-of-view into the fundamental debate? It really serves no purpose other than color opinion.

However, you DO bring up good debate points which frankly will lead us to nowhere as I can equally counter your narrative/points and you the same with me, and we end up creating a duality to this debate. I much rather we focus on facts, both observable and prove-able.

There are 2 points which I disagree with you -- compromised and crippled.

With regards to compromised -- there is no evidence for this other than conjecture. I believe you are actually referring to Control vs. Compromised. From what I understand, your assertion is BTC is controlled, but how so? what data and proof do you have that a group of people can at any time change Bitcoin?

For example -- Satoshi is MIA, what he intended may be to increase the blocksize (debatable, but let's run with it), BUT what he also intended was for this protocol to be decentralized and governed by the ecosystem, the People if you may.

Do you see the irony?

At inception, even Satoshi could not control Bitcoin; since then many attempts were made to fork the code to create easily controlled forms of 'Bitcoin-like' Crypto (e.g. BSV, BCH, DOGE, etc.).

So his creation is exactly what was intended... however he can only control the inception, from there is is up the network to decide where it goes.

The point of Bitcoin was to remove the power of money from the central bank and give it to The People of the World (not just America). At the core is the monetary policy or supply -- from there we must discuss what IS 'Money?' (a different time perhaps).

Unfortunately, an open system, is exactly that -- Open, anyone can participate, good or bad. But neither can control -- we can game theory it out for sure. Central Banks are welcomed to participate, but for some reason, they absolutely hate Bitcoin (BTC), I wonder why.

When Sathoshi's invention was released, with the start of the Genesis block, he relinquished all forms of control he had... now it's in the hands of the ecosystem. WHERE does it go from there? we shall see... but after over a decade, and after countless attempts to ban Bitcoin at the nation state level, it's still strong and thriving.

How is that crippled ?

Edit to your Edit!

Yes, the miners can write, but the Nodes need to validate IF they run the software. All the nodes could disappear tomorrow and BTC (and all other crypto really) would cease to exist as an unbroken blockchain.

Again, I would say we are debating the merits and operation of the tech -- all good debates and discussion. But I would assert that Bitcoin (BTC), or any crypto, needs to be looked at from multiple perspectives ... e.g. tech, decentralization, concentration of power (who holds the most), time scale, market size (adoption), mine concentration, hash rate, etc. etc.

A good point of view, but there is a conflation here between participation requirement and control -- Yes, no one needs to run a full node. There will be those who decide to for a variety of purposes... however there is no monetary incentive to run a full node. Why even bring in the maximalist point-of-view into the fundamental debate? It really serves no purpose other than color opinion.

However, you DO bring up good debate points which frankly will lead us to nowhere as I can equally counter your narrative/points and you the same with me, and we end up creating a duality to this debate. I much rather we focus on facts, both observable and prove-able.

There are 2 points which I disagree with you -- compromised and crippled.

With regards to compromised -- there is no evidence for this other than conjecture. I believe you are actually referring to Control vs. Compromised. From what I understand, your assertion is BTC is controlled, but how so? what data and proof do you have that a group of people can at any time change Bitcoin?

For example -- Satoshi is MIA, what he intended may be to increase the blocksize (debatable, but let's run with it), BUT what he also intended was for this protocol to be decentralized and governed by the ecosystem, the People if you may.

Do you see the irony?

At inception, even Satoshi could not control Bitcoin; since then many attempts were made to fork the code to create easily controlled forms of 'Bitcoin-like' Crypto (e.g. BSV, BCH, DOGE, etc.).

So his creation is exactly what was intended... however he can only control the inception, from there is is up the network to decide where it goes.

The point of Bitcoin was to remove the power of money from the central bank and give it to The People of the World (not just America). At the core is the monetary policy or supply -- from there we must discuss what IS 'Money?' (a different time perhaps).

Unfortunately, an open system, is exactly that -- Open, anyone can participate, good or bad. But neither can control -- we can game theory it out for sure. Central Banks are welcomed to participate, but for some reason, they absolutely hate Bitcoin (BTC), I wonder why.

When Sathoshi's invention was released, with the start of the Genesis block, he relinquished all forms of control he had... now it's in the hands of the ecosystem. WHERE does it go from there? we shall see... but after over a decade, and after countless attempts to ban Bitcoin at the nation state level, it's still strong and thriving.

How is that crippled ?