BU doesn't work. It sounds good in practice, "wow automatically adjusted blockchain? just what we need" but in practice it opens a can of worms. Too many possible attack vectors.

If it was as easy I would support a dynamic blocksize, I don't because there are big tradeoffs by doing so that I don't want to deal with. I want to be able to find my bitcoin on my wallet 20 years from now. BU does not give me that peace of mind. They will fuck up hard.

What I ask myself is why did BU nodes allow to screw themselves up, so core nodes should intervene to prevent a catastrophe. No sir, It doesn't characterise BU team as reliable profy

IoT devices would make great full nodes seeing that they are always online. Maybe some vendor could make something similar to the antrouter that combines a bitcoin miner and a router. Combine a refrigerator and a full node. It would help decentralize the network. 

However technology grows corruption will always be a part of the system. We cannot completely eliminate corruption in all sectors. The currently popular Blockchain technology helps for a better service and satisfaction to the customer in all manner.

Blockchain will become the next big health care technology innovation as it relates to payments and payer contracts.For example, when a health plan and a patient are dealing in contract, blockchain can automatically verify and authorize the information.With transparency and automation, greater efficiencies will lead to lower administration costs,faster claims and less money wasted.By adopting blockchain technology,organisations can eliminate the middleman and access patient data base on a large population scale.

but isn't this some kind of a flawed thing to do?
i mean one of the things about blockchain is that it is public which means anyone can have access to all the medical records of all patients which is a violation of privacy unless the data is also encrypted, then i don't get what the point of blockchain in the middle of all this is!

also you have to be able to delete records for example after someone is dead. there is no point in keeping it. how are they going to do that?!

I see that you are still fighting each other pointlessly. I guess your defending of BU is probably what makes you lose credibility, especially after the latest event.

They just want to get rid of middle men so the big pockets in the elite can raise their wages. They will keep automatizing everything and they will keep firing people to make more money.

Maybe the customer gets a faster service tho since there will not be queue of data to process.

Blockchain Technology can be applied to Medical Industry as well and not only to digital or cryptocurrencies.

No people is going to "wake up" and asking their team

Here is Andreas explaining why segwit is the way to go:
https://medium.com/segwit-co/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.yrq6jipqg

if you ignore using a hub and instead go for the 'hop' idea of LN... the costs are even bigger and penalty risk is higher

eg
A<->B
B<->C
C<->D
D<->E
imagine A wanted to pay E using the 'hop' concept.
first A move funds to B..
B wont change his funds with C for free so A has to pay a fee to B to thank him for his involvement
next B move funds to C..
C wont change his funds with D for free so A has to pay a fee to C to thank him for his involvement
next C move funds to D..
D wont change his funds with E for free so A has to pay a fee to D to thank him for his involvement

so to pay E is 4x the fee compared to just trading with B

this is what blockstream are hoping for. so this is where they become X (a hub)

A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

now everyone only has to pay 2x hop fee (A pay A->X, A pay X->E).  but everyone can trade with each other.(via X)
downside.
now X has 50% authorisation permission status with everyone.
now X has can be the deciding factor of how long they want to make customers funds mature for after settlements confirm (CLTV)
now X has can be the deciding factor of chargbacking their customers funds after settlements confirm (CSV revokes)

yea they may get some competition where starbucks or walmart become a hub. and offer a cheaper fee. but thinking that the 'hop' concept will be used dominantly is not a rational end result.

How are you going to make them to do what you want? If they don't want it and consider it unnecessary?

Those who want BU fork unconditionally and create a BU Coin. The rest continues with Bitcoin.

BU is very unreliable, to implement BU needs a hardfork, hardfork will be extremely negative, after hardfork, bitcoin is not decentralized any more, not reliable or immutable blockchain either. You can see ETHER's price, you will know how much hazard of hardfork will bring to bitcoin.

Get real, the only thing not tested here and proven to fail is BU.

And how and when are you going to realise this plan? And what if you can't achieve that?

Because so far I don't see how are we going to overcome BU mining hash power if we dont lower treshold

I always wonder about this. Running some xxx nodes should be a fraction of costs for pools. If so it should still be easier for pools to achieve majority for some change.

Further I guess pools might fear LN cause here they only get a fraction of the fees.

Could they start blocking those LN-tx ?