“The existence of a single monolithic development team .. does, in fact, create a single point of failure.”
Ignoring your weasel words (eg wtf is a “monolithic” development team?), this betrays a complete lack of understanding of how they develop software. Its designed, peer reviewed, implemented, peer reviewed, released, then peer reviewed again, and every single person in the network has the choice of running a Bitcoin Core client or any other modified client. Even if Bitcoin Core went *poof* and disappeared, Bitcoin wouldn’t fail. So.. its obvious that this situation isn’t a “single point of failure”.
The design of bitcoin allows anyone in the network to use whatever software they want. They can write it themselves, they can run a bitcoin implementation written by anyone they want. The fact is that no one else is writing good bitcoin software other than Bitcoin core. But even that doesn’t mean anyone is forced to run newer versions of the software that team produces. The power is and always will be in the hands of the network as a whole. So this “danger” is non-existent. The mere fact that anyone can use a forked version of bitcoin software is proof of that.
“the goal of Bitcoin has always been to become money”
I’m sorry, this sentence is so stupid I finally grasp how little you understand bitcoin. Bitcoin *started out* as money. The goal was accomplished with the very first running version. This is no longer the goal. The goal is *what type* of money is it going to be? Is it going to be money mostly controlled by giant companies and governments? Or is it going to be money controlled by mostly a more disperse group? This isn’t about “single points of failure” — this is about governance, ie who decides which blockchain is the longest valid chain. Literally no one out there is worried about “single points of failure” in bitcoin. You just don’t understand what people are debating about. So go RTFM before writing idiotic blog posts like this.