Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 10:15:45 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 09:54:27 AM

Here finally we might get feets on same ground - external / cross code rewieves ( core <-> BU ?) , dev testing and UAT / real live testing is your friend here.

People don't want to waste their time on reviewing BU, when it doesn't even have it's own proper testing and review system.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 09:54:27 AM

That's why I'm close to some compromise thingy with SW and 4MB lift in a HF

2 MB base and 6 MB weight would maybe work. Segwit should be added as a soft fork and the block size increase as a HF. There is no proposal that does this though.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 10:09:27 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 09:57:33 AM

Could be. Or maybe you're just being hysterical because you can't stop Lightning. Cheesy

I'm sorry you don't understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security, but Honey Badger doesn't care one bit.

I an sorry you were born a stupid asshat that rides a short bus.
Maybe you will be smarter in your next life. Cheesy

Segwit has failed Dufus.

LN doesn't need Segwit. Roll Eyes

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 10:10:00 AM

If you can peg - you can also un-peg.

Nonsense. If you allow un-pegging, LN is dead in its in conception.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 10:10:00 AM

I want use LN as well, but only for pennies I'm happy to lose and as quick as possible!

If you approach it with this mind set, the same is what you should say for BU.

I only say: On-chain scaling is more secure.

LN is not on chain, but nice for micro pay. Go for.

Disclaimer: I'm not Satoshi