Yeah, but disagreeing that bitcoin's performance has been 'poor' doesn't count as cognitive bias in any sane person's book.

So, to conclude.. you're the idiot here and tabnloz is spot on.

Next.

We can all agree that this technical issue is alarming for bitcoin's development. First of all what will happen when they accept Segwit inspite of btc unlimited? I am not a technical expert on this matter. What are the effects on the price, adoption etc, and most important why will bitcoin be infiltrated by Segwit and not by bitcoin unlimited? And we should not talk about eth scam. When windows sees that it is nothing more than an fancy monkey in a nice looking suit they will dump it and eth will collapse. dash is going to explode , huge nuke explosion incoming. They are just building their final buble right here. It will be fun to watch when it explodes.

Im not sure if this is a joke? I stopped watching after her first sentence:

"Bitcoin has been infiltrated. That's why its performance has been so poor."

this isn't quite right.
BU does not remove the limit.
BU isn't even much of a change for the status quo
BU keeps a limit.
the only real difference as that it doesn't require a 1 line edit + recompile to change that limit.
ofocure the code is more involved then this, BU clients take EB and AD and such into consideration, but thats besides the point.
the point is, BU doesn't remove the limit, it just makes it user define instead of hardcoded.

I believe the biggest plus to making this blocksize limit "market driven", is that it will allow for a stable TX fee market to form.

with a static limit the size of blocks will never be optimal and always lead to a screwed up fee market, either their is simply to much blockspace ( 8MB ) in which the fee market dies and all BTC TX get in a block with no fee at all, or the blocksize is to small (1MB) and miners loss out on potential fees of including a few more TX on each block.

with this market driven limit we will not see 1MB 2MB 8MB blocks.... Nope, miners will quickly realize that its in there best interst to have a blocksize limit which creates SOME fee pressure. besides the whole "bigger blocks will hurt decentration"  rhetoric, there will be a real economic incentive to agree on a minimalistic blocksizelimit.

we'll see block size incress at rate which keeps fee pressure at an optimal rate, and honestly i just dont see TX demand going up 10X  in a year. what is more likely IMO is seeing blocks grow like  1.1MB 1.25MB 1.4MB .... up to 8MB 4 years from now once fee paying BTC TX demand has increased about 8x

Of course, I wouldn't base my decision only on that.  Unfortunately I'm hard pressed to find a rational argument in favour of Segwit over BU.  I thought surely there would be one since I would assume the group that is working on Segwit is full of highly intelligent individuals that understand the nuts and bolts of Blockchain and Bitcoin very well.  I usually end up reading the reasons to support segwit are:

-slanderous statements against individuals that are in support of BU
-claims of impending doom to the network should BU be implemented with no technical explanation or reasoning, or ones not based on facts.
-claims that BU creates a centralized model, but without explaining how increasing block size above 1MB does this?  At the same time not explaining how forcing the majority of transactions to be done by centralized off chain hubs with need for trusted third parties in the "dark" does not create more of a centralized system.
-claims that BU is bad because it incentives mining, even though that is how the blockchain and bitcoin maintain their security and strength and incentive to mine is core to the maintenance of the network.

This is one thing I noticed a lot of coming from the Segwit side.  From previous experience in other situations similar to this, it doesn't paint a pretty picture of what they have to give to the public.

Core 0.14 allows manual prunning of the blockchain, to a minimum of 450 MB(<- that is the number that I remember).

So you just admitted that the BU is just about block size increase for now  

You didn't answer on technical problematics : _What about the total blockchain size which will grow exponentially faster with a block size increase ?
                                                              _What will be the block size with BU ? By choice of miners ? So the security problems and immutability problems that will result ?
                                                              _I'm not saying that segwit is essential, i think it's the best solution for now but of courseall solutions could always be better   but if segwit will be rejected well i wouldn't think bitcoin is dead but if the chain split or if BU become the established chain i would reconsider my position on mid-term long-term investments due to the problematics that will cause

BU is in control of a few Cinese miners, i think this central mining cartel isn't so decentralised, right? How much does Roger Ver pays you to mine ChinaCoin?  While Satoshi's vision is already absolute, the majority of the whole economic infrastructure wants SegWitt, NOT BU, BU miners will eventually mine for a loss sooner ore later. Blockstream ore Core's behaviour is irrelevant, ceo's, Exchanges, walletproviders, merchants etc the all dont care about it, except BU supporters

That is not true, that solves temporary i'm agree (short term) the problematics of high fees and increases the capacity of number of transactions /s but the total blockchain size would become exponentially faster a problem than with little blocks, this isn't elegant at all this is just basically a brutal short term approach, with that said the code of BU would cause many security problems and uncertainties on the immutability of Bitcoin now and that will mean the end of the project and would mean a big NON SENSE for investors who are searching a mean of storing value via a secured and immutable system.
And by the way The Core blocks represent still 73.4% of the blocks, BU is a minority which want to spread political rhetoric and non-scientifics argues to divide the Bitcoin community and kill bitcoiin because of their greed and their egocentralized point of view

I don't care about attack surfaces, but i DO care about not falling under a PBOC-driven cabal, present company excluded.

Is there some where someone can find a good objective review of the pros and cons of both BU and Segwit and legitimate reasons why people are so viscously apposed to one or the other? 

I've so far seen some coherent reasons for why people are not a fan of Segwit, but I really haven't seen much a rational argument from Segwit supporters. 

I'd really like to make an informed decision on which one I support.

https://coin.dance/blocks
OMG!! i'm updating it right now and i've got suprised. Okay, let's imagine how the rogerver is laughing right now. There are less than a percent of the gap between the result of BU and SegWit.
So, BU is for real. But i've curious about how the BU it works. So, can the miners try to run a vote about the transaction fees?

Because i've heard if LN can steal the reward of the miners and it looks like terrible.

Will unlimited size blocks actually result in no fee market?

No. Intuitively you can understand this by realizing that it will take a lot longer to propagate a gigantic block across the network than a small one. Therefore a gigantic block has a higher likelihood of being "orphaned" -- that is, a competing block will be found, propagated across the network and supplant the gigantic block. In this case the miner of the gigantic block will lose the block subsidy and transaction fees. Therefore miners are incentivised by limitations in the underlying physical network to produce smaller blocks, and incentivized by transaction fees to produce larger ones.

Finding the balance between these forces is where the free market excels. As underlying physical networks improve or fees increase, miners will naturally be able to produce larger blocks. The transaction "supply" (space in a block) therefore depends directly on the fundamental capacity, rather than relying on some centralized "steering committee" to properly set maximum block size. Bitcoin is all about disintermediation, and this is another example of it working.

The Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) project seeks to provide a voice to all stakeholders in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Every node operator or miner can currently choose their own blocksize limit by modifying their client. Bitcoin Unlimited makes the process easier by providing a configurable option for the accepted and generated blocksize via a GUI menu. Bitcoin Unlimited further provides a user-configurable failsafe setting allowing you to accept a block larger than your maximum accepted blocksize if it reaches a certain number of blocks deep in the chain.

By moving the blocksize limit from the protocol layer to the transport layer, Bitcoin Unlimited removes the only point of central control in the Bitcoin economy - the blocksize limit - and returns it to the nodes and the miners. An emergent consensus will thus arise based on free-market economics as the nodes/miners converge on consensus focal points, creating in the process a living, breathing entity that responds to changing real-world conditions in a free and decentralised manner.

This approach is supported by the evidence accumulated over the past six years. The miners and node operators have until now been free to choose a soft limit which, as demand grew, has always been increased in a responsive and organic manner to meet the needs of the market. We expect miners to continue in this tested and proven free-market way by, for instance, coordinating to set a new generated blocksize limit of 2MB and reject any blocks larger than 2MB unless they reach 4 blocks deep in the longest chain. As demand increases, the limit can easily be increased to 3MB, 4MB, and so on, thus removing central control over the process of finding the equilibrium blocksize by allowing the free market to arrive at the correct choice in a decentralised fashion.

As a foundational principle, we assert that Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run, and the rules they vote for with their hash power.

Everyone with better understanding of bitcoin than you ever will have wants segwit. The fact that you don't want segwit should make you consider that your stance on this subject is indeed wrong.

The majority of the whole ecosystem doesn't give a shit about that...the most prominent names wants Segwitt because Segwitt is technical better and gives more security.