Ultimately a cryptocurrency needs a functional governance model to survive - it has to be possible to update the code, and so people have to decide somehow on which version is valid, and this creates the opportunity for a power structure to exist, and where there is such an opportunity, someone will fill it. Having a "hero" in charge is not the best way but Bitcoin is a fucking mess right now.
The implementation is guided by Charlie. Litecoin had SegWit months before bitcoin because the team doesn't have competing factions. He isn't a "leader" in the tradition since, he is the worker, hands on keyboard writing the code.
Sure, but that sidesteps the question: why does that matter?
The answer isn't inherently obvious. Bitcoin seems to be doing just fine without a leader and with competing factions. The November issue will probably resolve itself just like all the issues that came before.
And there are a lot of advantages to Bitcoin's model. Having a face means tying the fate of the currency to that face, one way or another. Their word starts to matter much more.
I agree with your general sentiment for sure, why should any of this matter?
On a personal basis I feel much more secure knowing a respected member of the community has enough faith in their product to tie their identity to it. Litecoin also has features that bitcoin doesn't. Faster block generation time, different hashing algorithms, larger supply. Charlie gives me confidence that the leadership of Bitcoin has not.
The other question is, if LTC ever becomes as relevant as BTC is in the marketplace (BTC has 30x marketcap), could Charlie still retain enough power to continue to be the guiding hand?
Gavin Andresen was that force in Bitcoin for years, as lead developer and chief evangelist, but now he plays a minor role; recently with big $$ in play and the big community split, not to mention the insane personal attacks, it is much harder to maintain influence.
I guess only time will tell. The thing I respect about Charlie is that he seems completely aware of the difference between being a guiding hand vs. totalitarian ruler with absolute power. He's mentioned numerous times that Litecoin is not "his" although people are free to ask him directly of his intention. Even in the little ways he articulates himself as the "benevolent dictator," as well as publicly speaking to the negatives that come with that is something that is refreshing. Not only does he have the right individual background to lead LTC to great things (whatever that actually ends up being), he has the right relations with people/stakeholders in different communities to make it happen as well.
