Now that is very interesting... My understanding is that malleability is mitigated by requiring a few confirmations anyway.

Also, plenty of Segwit implementation bugs in bitcoin-related software haven't been uncovered yet...

Not sure if you know anything about software dev?

In an ideal world you d have three layers:

Dev net

Test or UAT

Prod


And even in this world some bug can be only found in prod cause first 2 nets have not the density of prod.

Maybe Unlimited Chinese miners pay for every favorable post about BU like in signature campaign.  

I heard that he's only admin not owner. If you think they are prejudiced agaisnt bu why they didn't ban you?

because no matter how much trolls try to ringfence me into a band camp. im thinking about the bitcoin consensus network.
yea i detest blockstream because i have seen what they are upto.

same cant be said for those idolising/defending blockstream, but not thinking about or understanding the bitcoin network itself
lauda for instance doesnt know C++ to have read a line of code to be a critical enough advocate for his 'belief's'

as you yourself are using the term hardfork, without understand consensus vs bilateral split.

yep even softforks can cause bilateral splits. (mind blowing)

its worth you realising the umbrella terms first and learn about bitcoin before defending a corporation that is desperate need to open up commercial services to repay them investors. especially if you are hoping for a pay day by being loyal to them corporate investors

here ill help you learn about the umbrella term 'hardfork' you use but dont seem to understand

---

firstly learn consensus agreement vs bilateral split.

too many times people only speak of the best case scenario of soft and the worse case of hard.(they know why they do it!!)
but effectively the only difference between soft and hard is who gets to vote to activate..

soft.. pool votes nodes dont.
hard.. nodes vote then pools.

but in both soft and hard. both can have consensus, both can be controversial and both can have bilateral

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced dead
hardfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

to make an actual altcoin you need to do more then just make bigger blocks or send an erroneous transaction.. as that just causes rejects/orphans.

you need to actually make the nodes ignore the opposing data and nodes so that they are not sticking to the same data. and instead walk in opposite directions

high agreement = less orphans/rejects
low agreement = more orphans/rejects
but if you have another clause to avoid rejecting or even seeing the opposition. then you are risking creating an altcoin

I support BU. 

Bitcoin Unlimited is a tool to allow node operators and miners to more easily configure their nodes' blocksize limits and signal their preferences to the network.  This is what we need right now.

There's not so many people like you who supports Unlimited. It has so many flaws and It's not been even tested properly. Why do you think the minority may dictate the majority?

And no investor is going to risk real money on something that cannont handle more than 200 millions transaction per year.
No investor is going to risk money if he will not have the possibility to withdraw his money without paying huge fees.

BU is tested, and it's designed by skilled developers. So your statement is a lie.



BU is rapidly growing in popularity and it's exceeding support for SegWit, so it looks like BU is winning, not Core. So, sad for you.



Luckily, this is a lie. Core does not call the shots, and nor should they. Bitcoin is designed to be decentralized, so having a handful of devs calling the shots is dangerous for the health of bitcoin, and goes completely against the idea of decentralization.   
Bitcoin is supposed to move us AWAY from corrupt powers, not to replace them by corrupt devs.   

BU helps the miners get their power back, and the miners SHOULD have power. Because the miners committed millions of dollars to invest in mining hardware, and because mining hardware can only do 1 thing (mine bitcoin) the ONLY way for miners to get their investment back, is by making sure bitcoin succeeds. So giving power to the miners makes SURE that bitcoin will succeed.


Se above statements. You are completely clueless.