Quote from: Hyena on March 09, 2017, 05:55:08 PM

Quote from: jofus on March 09, 2017, 05:17:13 PM

Is there some where someone can find a good objective review of the pros and cons of both BU and Segwit and legitimate reasons why people are so viscously apposed to one or the other?

I've so far seen some coherent reasons for why people are not a fan of Segwit, but I really haven't seen much a rational argument from Segwit supporters.

I'd really like to make an informed decision on which one I support.

I'm a life long software architect and a programmer. Having said that, as a specialist in my field, I can say the following:

Bitcoin Unlimited is a clean and elegant way how to upgrade the Bitcoin protocol one step at a time. It is philosophically sound, it is simple and effective. This is how software should be developed.

SegWit is an abomination to all self-respectful software architects. Shortly put --- it is a really ugly hack. It tries to accomplish many goals all at once. This drives up code/protocol complexity and increases the attack surface on the Bitcoin network by an order of magnitude. What is more, it will scare away open-source programmers from the Bitcoin project because no one enjoys working on a codebase that has become a labyrinth due to all these hacks and quirks. Does anyone remember the Heartbleed vulnerability discovered in OpenSSL? Well that's the kind of stuff you will get for code that no one enjoys reviewing. I don't want OpenSSL Heartbleed analogy to happen to Bitcoin and that's why I reject SegWit.

Those who keep saying "SegWit because of LN, TX-malleability, quadratic hashing fix" are demagogues. By saying this they make it seem as if Bitcoin Unlimited is not going to solve those issues. This is brutally wrong. You will get Lightning networks, a fix to TX malleability and a fix to quadratic hashing with Bitcoin Unlimited or even with Bitcoin Classic. You will get those features the way software is ought to be developed --- modularly, so that different features are logically separated and can be individually reviewed.

That is not true, that solves temporary i'm agree (short term) the problematics of high fees and increases the capacity of number of transactions /s but the total blockchain size would become exponentially faster a problem than with little blocks, this isn't elegant at all this is just basically a brutal short term approach, with that said the code of BU would cause many security problems and uncertainties on the immutability of Bitcoin now and that will mean the end of the project and would mean a big NON SENSE for investors who are searching a mean of storing value via a secured and immutable system.
And by the way The Core blocks represent still 73.4% of the blocks, BU is a minority which want to spread political rhetoric and non-scientifics argues to divide the Bitcoin community and kill bitcoiin because of their greed and their egocentralized point of view