Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 01:59:47 PM

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2017, 01:58:08 PM

In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.

and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade..

maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade

Another straw man argument. This is how you deflect the actual argument instead of admitting that you were lying about the differentiation between SWSF and SWHF. Classic shilling.

Quote from: dinofelis on April 23, 2017, 02:16:59 PM

-snip-

I'm now entirely convinced of my previous assessment of you. You show zero signs of reading any kind of research on blockchain consensus. Maybe start at Princeton.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 23, 2017, 03:01:30 PM

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

Wait, so you're trying to imply that BU is essentially dead. Now we are going back to BIP100?