/u/rabbitlion despite fundamental ideological differences that I'll get into during the second half of my post, let me just say that what you write is not the TLDR at all.

Part I.

Here is the Coinbase tweet that is referenced as the justification for removing Coinbase from the wallet list:

"Coinbase is now running BitcoinXT (BIP101) in production as an experiment, blog post w more details coming soon"

Running a bitcoin client in production is not the same as storing customer bitcoin using the client! Coinbase reports that most deposits are held in cold storage. Additionally, their hot wallets aren't running off bitcoin "core" or "XT" regardless. Coinbase created and open sourced their own ruby implementation called Toshi, look it up.

So unless this is some sort of gargantuan misunderstanding on the part of the moderators at bitcoin.org, Coinbase experimenting with XT is not a justification for censorship.

Part II.

XT is no more of an experimental wallet than Core. The code base is nearly identical.

Core has a track record of prioritizing work that benefits the private interests employing some of their developers (CLTV), and has also merged changes that damage bitcoin's functionality to enable other schemes that are untested in production and highly experimental (RBF).

XT also contains things the market didn't ask for (Hearn put some stuff in that was rejected by the core maintainers), but it contains scaling logic (BIP101) that is very popular with everyone but miners, and two notable private companies.

Bitcoin is supposed to be peer to peer electronic cash. I've been watching it closely for 5-6 years now, and I'm crystal clear that it was meant to scale, and not in a way that is managed by private companies or a centralized authority.

I think there are very solid arguments that both core and XT contain code that runs against the grain of the original vision of bitcoin, but I have to say that core now has lapped XT in this area with the filibustering around scaling the max_block_size to the point where transactions don't confirm, and merging of destructive code into the core reference client (RFB that hurts bitcoin as a payment option without supplementary technologies promoted by private companies).

So I find your "experimental" reasoning invalid, and even if it were valid, I would still find censorship of alternative implementations of bitcoin antithetical to the best interests of bitcoin.

This appears to be an attempt to cement the centralization of bitcoin development through censorship, and in a way that hurts bitcoin far worse by demonizing the largest and most accessible onramp to bitcoin out there today.

Highly destructive actions, childish, and all involved should be ashamed. I would say this in /r/bitcoin if I wasn't banned permanently.