calling someone a liar . but no technical rebuttal is just wasting your own time.
all i say to you is
[yawn]... oh look a tumbleweed blowing down the road.

try spending time learning about bitcoin and less time just mouthing off. it will actually help you to learn bitcoin so please learn it

remember "its bad coz its bad" is not a valid argument.

your talking about the same threat as what could have happened over the last 8 years by sybil attacking the network with lots of 500kb limit nodes

many dynamic blocks are envisioning including a 'speedtest' algo that tests their effectiveness to notice a new block download it, validate it and relay it out and set a score of start to end.
then use that to help flag the upper limit. they will accept which becomes consensus.h
where by they then have the lower limit policy.h has the prefered size as acceptable safety which can automaticaly grow at need BELOW the ultimate limit

this using the network consensus by x% flagging big no no to Xmb pools wont then make Xmb. thus not killing off nodes. and where nodes abilities as technology and telecommunications improve over the years allows the network t grow at an acceptable natural and progressive amount

(EG raspberryPi3 even behind the china firewall can handle 8mb blocks.. so a 8mb consensus.h and a 2mb policy.h to begin with which can increase naturally upto 8mb without having to manually do anything)
meaning pools would then go from 1mb.. and try 1.001mb to test the water and increment to say 1.99mb before worrying about orphans. and then the automated moving of the policy.h can occur. all while blocks are way below 8mb

do not be fooled by the "visa by midnight" "gigabyte by midnight" "servers by midnight" rhetoric that blockstreamers are spewing out when they exaggerate satoshis words to fit a fake narative that bitcoin needs to commercialise and centralise to survive

your listening to sheep that are just saying its bad because it is not allowing blockstream (private company) to centralise the network.

BU wants to keep the network open. and work on the same playing field (network) as others.. only blockstream(segwit) are the ones that want centralisation and commercialisation where blockstream are kings.

its worth you spending time learning about bitcoin by learning the meaning of this word as your starting point of bitcoin:
consensus

dont just read the 30 second elevator scripts thrown around on reddit. learn about bitcoin and try to not be sold by the empty gestures of fake blockstream scripts

oh here we go again "visa by midnight" scare stories

bitcoin will not compete against visa, mastercard or paypal overnight.. even with LN

bitcoins user adoption is natural slow adoption over years not hours.
halting natural growth onchain for the last 2 years using fake rhetorics about visa is FOOLISH.

bitcoin should be allowed to grow NATURALLY onchain progressively over decades. where by LN is just a side voluntary service.
halting all onchain growth for years is not about helping bitcoin achieve better scaling. its about frustrating users into blindly accepting the "elements/lightning" commercialised version of LN service as the end goal and only option blockstream will allow

LN (the many non blockstream/elements/lightning ) versions DO NOT NEED segwit, and can work as voluntary side services.. not essential end solution

your mixing your attacker

going soft can force though blockstreams own vision..
thats why they need segwit
to force through a special biased commercial version of "elements/lighning" LN
force through Schnorr
force through mimblewimble

but they use 'softer' words to stroke you to sleep to make it not seem bad.

bitcoin should user real CONSENSUS. not bypassing it to add in any crazy feature without nodes able to vote or veto it.

in detroit.
when a drug dealer sells drugs. does that now make the grocery store liable for later selling a drug dealer a carton of milk because the drug dealer bought milk using drug related money.... simply because the grocery store didnt KYC every customer that buys groceries


regulations do not stop drugs or crimes. regulations just make governments life easier to grab free cash after a crime without having to do the investigation. by making private businesses do all the paperwork for them

IBM highly involved in hyperledger
http://www.the-blockchain.com/2017/02/02/nine-ten-governments-investing-blockchain-2018-says-ibm-study/

---

http://www.coindesk.com/central-banks-hyperledger-blockchain/

---

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hsbc-bank-america-merrill-lynch-use-hyperledger-project-blockchain-based-trade-finance-1575269

^ here we have a blockstream defender who cannot rebut using code scenarios or real info but only rebut with personal attack.
[yawn]... oh look a tumbleweed blowing down the road.

please learn bitcoin
learn consensus
learn coding and come back with some logical rebuttles about how bitcoin actually works.

but to address your point about "a cheap alternative" while also using words of your king..

using gmaxwells words(not verbatim)
'BU is just a core 0.12 copy and paste job with a few minimal changes...'

well thats just proof that offering more capacity doesnt require a total game changing re-write of the entire thing, doesnt require "upstream filters" doesnt require new keys, doesnt require users moving funds to new keys just to see a feature function, doesnt require intentionally banning nodes.

using gmaxwells words(not verbatim)
'BU is just a core 0.12 copy and paste job with a few minimal changes...'

well thats just proof that offering more capacity doesnt require a total game changing re-write of the entire thing, doesnt require "upstream filters" doesnt require new keys, doesnt require users moving funds to new keys just to see a feature, doesnt require intentionally banning nodes.

 

segwit block looks nothing like a native bitcoin block data
segwit keys look nothing like native bitcoin keys
segwit nodes treat native nodes differently
segwit nodes treat native blocks differently

segwit avoids node consensus
segwit requires nodes to filter(translate) segwit blocks
segwit requires being centralised to be the upstream filters
segwit require getting people to move funds to segwit keys just to disarm those volunteers. while still leaving native users armed

---

all BU(or any dymanic block proposal*)does is change what is the acceptable blocksize miners can build.. but automated
meaning the data looks the same, the nodes relay the same, the tx's are the same. it just allows more of it with a few other efficiency tweaks

*note:
there are other dynamic block proposals, but most wont hear about them because they dont get passed the blockstreams moderated censorship wall to be seen on blockstreams moderated bip list

you can thank the pools that support blockstream for that possibility of occurance.
the removal of reactive fee acceptance ( natural demand) and sticking to blockstreams 'average fee' relay rules. means even in low demand average fee estimate rules are still high. leading to ignoring certain low fee tx's during low demand

guys dont get excited about LN

LN feature: CLTV maturity = equivalent of 3-5 business delay in spending funds AFTER withdrawal from service
LN feature: CSV revokes = equivalent of second party chargeback AFTER withdrawal from service

calling it a BUcoin is more reddit script drama. because blockstream dont want to admit that BU, btcd, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others as part of bitcoin

BU wont cause a bilateral split.. nither would the other nodes that want to happily have one network and use real consensus to grow as one progressive network
blockstream will have to cause the split.(but are delaying it to try poking the bear to get others to do the dirty work so they can fakingly play the victim card of the crime they want committed)

its obvious blockstream will and it seems blockstreamers want to split.
so it will be blockstream that will cause "cause havok just like ETH/ETC"

and blockstream seem to love the idea of it

carlton wants it to be an altcoin. simply so that blockstream have 100% control of their 30% altcoin which will simply become known as clams2.0

its only blockstream that want to split anything not blockstream..

other implementations want to keep the network together and use real consensus and all work on the same playing field.
no matter how much blockstreamers want to call anything not blockstream accepted as an altcoin. the only way it becomes an altcoin is if blockstream themselves do the splitting off..

which is becoming more and more apparent as to what blockstream is looking to do with

UASF (reality its a hard bilateral fork)

countries wont want to give up their 'local currencies' but they will join together their SWIFT, RTGS and other transfer mechanisms to get a more practical, efficient and secure method of transporting value.

but in my mind let the banks play with their closed door fiat networks.

and let bitcoin be separate as the open currency for anyone to have without all the barriers and headaches or worries of government seizures simply for not paying tax on time or having a bank charge. due to them not having privkey access to funds be default

...a world "reserve" currency detached from local currencies...
check out the swaps the IMF are doing.. using .. SDR's. which are then converted to local currencies.
this too will be sidechained near the top of the hyperledger pyramid

but does not mean all local currencies will go and everyone just trading goods for crypto SDR's

what your quoting of my quote of a quote.. is:
1. breaking the "backward compatible" promise - yea i laughed reading they will literally want to ban blocks because they are not segwit branded even if the data was valid

2. causes a split in the network. yep i laughed that even going soft can cause a bilateral split. breaking the promise that going soft avoids such drama

emergent consensus  (BU specific proposal of dynamics) has not been around since day one because BU hasnt been around since day one. then again core hasnt been around since 2009 either. (it was satoshi-qt prior to 2013)

but the whole thing about "excessive blocks"(BU specific proposal) is about making policy.h more important as the lower threshold and the "FLAGGER", while making it more automatically moveable.. rather than manually movable.

in the past 2013 sipa and core devs had to manually move the policy.h and so did pools.. though nodes were not really using policy.h as the node validation of block rule. pools were reliant on it.

infact early clients had 3 layers
protocol =32mb
consensus=1mb
policy <500kb
in the early days

dynamics has been tested actually..
though 1mb was the limit (in consensus.h).. much like some dynamics propose to move this to 16mb(in consensus.h)

pools have been dynamically moving their preferential block sizes since 2009.. (in policy.h) 2013 was below 500kb in 2015 it was below 750kb

so much like the many dynamic block proposals that want to elevate (in consensus.h) to 4mb, 8mb, 16mb, 32mb whatever.. there is and always has been a second limit that is dynamically moved below this(in policy.h)...

some proposals want the policy.h to have a bigger usefulness for the nodes. where the nodes flag to allow or not allow pools to go beyond X policy.h maxblocksize

good example of a previous event:
just imagine the headache if we stayed at 500kb blocks when Sipa done the leveldb bug event..
as thats the reality of the debate today. the same as the "do we go above 500kb in policy.h in 2013 eventhough consensus.h was 1mb"

p.s
my node and many other nodes have a consensus.h of 8mb right now and my node in particular has a policy.h limit of 1mb (and a few tweaks to validation) .. and im not having any problems