What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = bitcoin?
Are you trolling , looking for an argument, or you really want a lesson in consensus?
Argument. That was what was being preached by BTU folk, and you were most certainly not eager to correct them.
Where I think you’re right is that the BU proposal, if it leads to a higher node-level centralization, would also put into question the “decentralized nature” of on-chain payments. But at least some idealists in the BU fraction seem to think there is a possibility BU won’t centralize the node structure because of technological evolution (like the LN enthusiasts that believe in a decentralized LN). It’s possible that both hopes are only wishful thinking, but we would need to test it to find it out.
You have no real argument that proves your assertion that Core would centralized the second layer, and BU would not. In both case, if we were to follow your own statements, LN would be somewhat centralized regardless of Core or BU. The fix to your statement would be (only where the outcome of the second layer is the same for both implementations):
Core: decentralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer
BU: centralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer
Lauda, do you think the Core developers are seriously thinking about a POW upgrade? Is it on the table?
Depends. People wrongly think that if luke-jr (for example) or Todd think about doing something == Core considering something == likely to be added into bitcoin Core. This is wrong. They are Core contributors, yes, but what they independently think about or consider is far from having a chance of being added to the repository.
Speaking of ‘trojan horses’:
Another major BU bug, now with a special bonus: a closed source patch. 
Published at Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:06:22 +0000
[wpr5_ebay kw=”bitcoin” num=”1″ ebcat=”” cid=”5338043562″ lang=”en-US” country=”0″ sort=”bestmatch”]: Better entertainment than cable!
By Ryan Finnie on 2013-03-06 18:12:17
