Quote from: franky1 on April 03, 2017, 07:09:07 AM

Quote from: Goms on April 03, 2017, 05:10:41 AM

Well the concept of BU goes against that of bitcoin - at least in practise.
With BU, you rely on some giants with their own nodes in order to transact.
Originally there was no need to depend on ANYONE but BU says no, please rely on these giants to make transactions faster... or whatever it is they really are after.
The bilderbergs don't want an economy they can't influence.

might be worth you taking a non biased look at cores TIER network plan
words to look into
"upstream filter"
"bypassing consensus by going soft"
"DCG funding cartel(bilderberg)"

then look at who is setting the deadlines, mandatory activations, making the PoW nukes, begging other implementations to bilaterally split

all while the reality shows if the dynamic implementations wanted to controversially split. they would have done so sometime over the last 2 years..
yet the dynamic implementations just plod along with no threats no ban hammers no deadlines.. offering a free open choice that only activates with consensus.
yep no bypassing.

remember only core gave pools the only vote(going soft). so pools gave miners control over segwit. not the other implementation proposals.

I think you forget that BU isn't the current development team. If they were, you could be sure that they would be equally nasty if not nastier than Core. They can't do a mandatory activation without having the power to do so - however nice they try to look, they're still propped up by the likes of Roger Ver, Jihan Wu etc and acting like BU is some grassroots movement isn't considering the reality of Bitcoin centralisation.