BU may be a perfectly good approach for cryptocurrency, taken broadly, but it doesn't work the same way as Bitcoin and can't legitimately claim to, nor rely on Bitcoin's established security model or properties.
I agree insofar that the original model attempts to
fix security and consensus issues entirely on code level.
But things have changed, and "one cpu, one vote" does
not apply anymore. Neither the Core approach or BU approach
to dealing with the blocksize issue can be said to exist
inherently as a property of Bitcoin. Although I personally
feel that the latter approach is more in line with the
"philosophy" or "vision".
Bitcoin's longest chain rule is still Sybil-proof unconditionally and by fairly simple reasoning, regardless of the wider context of Core's approach to development. BU's is not.
That doesn't mean that Bitcoin is the best approach. It also doesn't mean that BU is unsound. It just means you can't correctly claim that BU obviously has the same longest chain proof-of-work security properties as Bitcoin. Because it does not.
You have to reason about its properties independently, and justify their soundness. And mostly not to me but to the rest of the world. I think you will fail, but my opinion means little.