https://coinb.in/#verify is good enough for this? Do it off-line of course.

I agree that this proposal is complex but Lightning Network isn't simple as well. Also bitcoin still stays a peer-to-peer electronic cash system whereas Lightning Network brings the middleman in the equation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381234.0

The Core won't do this so chaotic forks are filling the vacuum. It's messy but effective in relieving transaction fee pressure.

There are no settings or addresses. Just paste a signed transaction and click 'submit transaction'.

https://blockchainbdgpzk.onion/pushtx or http://4zpinp6gdkjfplhk.onion/#broadcast.

There is a gap between 12×2+6×2+2×2+1=41 and 60.
Why not use product of primes instead of SHCN addition?
After all product is just a serial addition and it's miner's job to repeat operations.

1 is a positive integer so 'Quote from: moukafih.adil' isn't true, sorry.

I disagree with you, SegWit fixes transaction malleability and allows use of payment channels for example.

Fourfold increase of block size is much but not enough at mass adoption stage. Bitcoin needs on-chain scaling like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381234.0 . Or altcoins can be used instead of split chains (the current state of affairs) but it will be quite messy to setup tens/hundreds of different coins.

With all my disregard of Lightening Network I admit that their payment channels are quite good.
You open a $100 payment channel and shuffle money with shop for free until there is nothing left or you have had enough of them.
Then you close the channel with one on-chain transaction.

Actually the original idea was to kill as many altcoins as possible
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381234.0

Use MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) escrow when in doubt.

I think it's about Lightning Network which isn't easily implemented without SegWit. The SegWit soft fork complicates a bit things but the main worry is Lightning Network that leads to more centralization.

Of course my proposal is radical but hopefully not stupid.
You can read a short explanation at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381234.0 .

The fees aren't a problem but the lack of block space is. I have proposed a way to scale the bitcoin network on chain https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381234.0 , so far the development team is afraid to make radical moves. Meanwhile BCH and co. slowly but surely creep up https://coinmarketcap.com .

We can't have Bitcoin in its current state, just look at https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ . And I'm not sure Lightning Network will work as intended, even less so with 1MB blocks.