Unauthorized?

In a decentralised system based wholly around cypherpunk distrust of central authorisation, you call something unauthorised?

I'm not sure if that's hilarious or just sad.

Oh, it's "just sad", for sure...

There has to be some acknowledgement that if you take someone else's work and modify it, you shouldn't then be allowed to claim you are them.

Do you not see the irony in what you're saying here?

It is by definition a decentralised, anarchic system. The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious.

> The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious.

That's great, but it's not what I wrote. What "one true core"?

Taking someone's software, modifying it, and touting your change as the next version of their software is wrong. Regardless if the code is meant for a block chain, or anything else.

But that's exactly what's happened with Bitcoin, as collaborative work.

What? Satoshi disappeared! The rest of the developers continued on. How is that comparable to bitcoin cash trying to do a hostile take over of bitcoin, simply because they want to take the brand name for themselves?