Quote from: franky1 on September 23, 2016, 02:59:25 PM

once you have researched what they all actually are.
-snip-

You yourself have no idea what they all actually are.

Quote from: jbreher on September 23, 2016, 06:01:12 PM

Interesting assertion. I'd like to read your extensive code review of each such "other implementation".

There isn't an extensive code review of such an implementation by myself (probably not by anyone, as I haven't seen one). That's not the point though. The point was that 'these people' are throwing around assertions regarding the safety of random block sizes just because 'it's fine one some test-net'.

Quote from: jbreher on September 23, 2016, 06:10:26 PM

You do, of course, realize that if one lonely cpu starts mining upon this chain, you will have been proven utterly wrong?

I was talking about the current miners of Bitcoin.

Quote from: jbreher on September 23, 2016, 06:10:26 PM

Oh wait - self-contradiction in one neat paragraph - quite an achievement!

It's not a contradiction; read the above.

Quote from: jbreher on September 23, 2016, 06:10:26 PM

Well, no. Segwit does absolutely nothing to make larger blocks safe.

Yes, it does actually, since there's no such thing as "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset".