Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 16, 2016, 03:29:01 AM

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

And Core doesn't either? What sort of misleading propaganda are you spewing? Even Luke-JR is working on a soft serve hard fork option to force through an increase in maxBlockSize if there is a gridlock with a hardfork on scaling the main chain. Most of core is interested in scaling the main chain with flexcap, but perhaps just not as quickly as you prefer?

Please provide evidence if this is not the case , or repent for your misleading comments.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 16, 2016, 03:29:01 AM

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

Anyway, the most important thing is we need to implement a scalability
solution ASAP. Until that happens, Bitcoin is in "dangerous waters"
to quote Mike... and the market apparently agrees.

These are the two latest viable proposals ... both are fine IMHO, but I am slightly biased towards core because technically its better.

Classic - basically BIP102 - Earliest March 1st ,16 but possibly in April /may to build up enough consensus (waiting for code and testnet)
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core + Segwit - Code completed, Been in testnet since Dec 31, expected april.
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining