Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 09:17:28 AM

Nope, But I notice you ignored the Question.

There was no question mark. You're a delusional troll.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 09:17:28 AM

Actually you were trying to use him to make your point, see when you change your opinions from one post to the next.
Lying causes that to happen.

There was no lie. IF he didn't know about the issue, he wouldn't have introduced those limits in the proposal. Of course, a simpleton like you understands no technicalities. Roll Eyes

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 09:35:06 AM

We already have a risk variable called the nr. of Bitcoin nodes.
With LN you introduce another risk variable, called the nr. of LN hubs.

No. The LN hubs or lack thereof would just make routing harder. It does not pose a risk in the context that you're referring to.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 09:35:06 AM

Instead of just introducing a more efficient mining system other than POW that does keep mining more decentralized, now Segwil will mess around with both the mining incentive structure, and the Bitcoin node system.

Segwit does not mess around with either in a dangerous sense which is what you're referring to.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 09:35:41 AM

(2MB or just no) MAX BLOCK SIZE - uhhg not 100% - never been here ( Satoshis most important protocol param 1MB !)

If you think that BU is a simple change, or secure, you've been drinking some strong kool-aid. If I had to choose outside of Bitcoin Core, I'd go with the original Bitcoin Classic proposal (rather than the current Classic/BU nonsense).