Quote from: jbreher on September 23, 2016, 06:32:33 PM

Does that make you honest? No - it makes you a liar that has been caught in a lie.

No. I was proving a point which you seem to have missed.

Quote from: franky1 on September 23, 2016, 08:00:30 PM

ive read the code of each.

What a nice joke. Roll Eyes

Quote from: DooMAD on September 23, 2016, 09:58:26 PM

Based on that, it sounds like you're not even remotely educated on what these alternative implementations are or how they work.

I'm "educated" enough about BU to not be interested in their work at this time. The reason that I used the "16 MB" was because somebody was advocating that 16 MB blocks were safe, which is obviously false.

Quote from: DooMAD on September 23, 2016, 09:58:26 PM

You seemingly just regurgitate opinions you've read elsewhere without even bothering to check the legitimacy of it.

If that was the case, then I'd be supporting Bitcoin Classic and BU.

Quote from: DooMAD on September 23, 2016, 09:58:26 PM

It's precisely the point.

No. That was a demonstration of the assertions being throw out by pro-BU members around here.

Quote from: DooMAD on September 23, 2016, 09:58:26 PM

Again with the garbage assumptions. Perhaps you could explain why you're skeptical about the proposals and in the process prove that you actually understand them.

You tell me to do research, and then afterwards want me to explain why e.g. header-first mining is a bad idea? How about you do the research this time?

Obviously we're long past any technical debate in this thread, and are at a point where the mindset being received is in the lines of "No, you're wrong. xx MB blocks are super safe. Core is evil".