Quote from: TechorMarketing on April 09, 2016, 09:26:34 PM

Quote from: r0ach on April 09, 2016, 09:20:03 PM

Quote from: dEBRUYNE on April 09, 2016, 09:09:15 PM

I'd agree if BTC wasn't such a mess.

But it's not. Segwit + Core conceded on hardfork = 3.2mb blocks in 2017. I see the glass ceiling on BTC price coming off mostly around 8-10MB blocks, so it's not far off.

But about Monero, I think I saw Peter Todd claiming the Bitpay or something or other company's idea for dynamic block size was a "broken" idea the other day. Wasn't Bitpay's idea the same thing Monero already uses? What was the difference in the two? I would find it hard to believe he would say that solely because of a missing non-zero block reward. Someone needs to question the Todd and get him to clarify these statements as they relate to Monero.

Do have a source for the Peter Todd comments? I would be interested in reading them.

https://petertodd.org/2016/btcc-funding

No explanation why though:

Quote from: Peter Todd

given that poor communication its no surprise that were seeing fundamentally broken proposals like BitPays Adaptive Block Size Limit

And here Peter Todd loses his mind thinking that he is somehow in control of bitcoin + reveals the Blockstream agenda:

Quote from: Peter Todd

Would I personally support doing a hard fork that was expected to activate within two or three months as a replacement for that capacity increase, if techniques like the above were used? If major industry players were willing to commit to layer 2 solutions, Id be willing to support something like a forced soft fork, and Id be willing to support a coin voting hard fork even if they didnt.