It has been tested on testnet already. Stop spreading misinformation. There's nothing dangerous about bigger blocks.
The BU testing methodology is garbage and should not be used as 'evidence' for anything.
In fairness, you would sound far more convincing if you actually did a bit of research and didn't spurt out things like:
Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks.
Based on that, it sounds like you're not even remotely educated on what these alternative implementations are or how they work. You seemingly just regurgitate opinions you've read elsewhere without even bothering to check the legitimacy of it.
The problem is that these "other implementations" only have half-baked, horribly coded improvements.
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.
It's precisely the point. You're slamming something you haven't even attempted to comprehend. People are now falling over each other to point out that fact and you're making it very easy for them.
i think its time lauda goes spend a few hours to ask his friends the difference between xthin and headers first
Again, I have no "friends" to ask. Anyhow, both of those proposals are such garbage that looking into them is a waste of time.
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. Or you could dismiss them as "garbage" and we'll all assume that you're just guessing again because you read something in passing and decided it must be true without questioning it.