It's not about crypto, its about process. Compare this action to one by Debian or Wikipedia where there's a formal proposal, time for written pros and cons with convincing arguments for each side, and a meeting where the vote is held and impact to stakeholders is discussed.

You can't make large changes like this without undermining your viability as stable infrastructure.

This attitude is toxic and will drive off other projects that aren’t associated with crypto. Once you have to factor in political risk with your source hosting, other alternatives become more appealing.

At this point any project that’s even vaguely controversial ought to be looking at fully decentralized solutions like Radicle.

You don’t think Satoshi Nakamoto had credibility or professionalism? It’s not fair to lump the bad seeds in with the good. Imagine if I said the US Dollar was a scam because drug cartels or AI companies use it.

So what, then? Disallow code that isn't deemed credible or professional by what metric? This whole thing is getting too political. I just want to write open-source software and let the users decide its worth.

[dead]