Quote from: Lauda on March 18, 2017, 03:29:52 PM

Quote from: rav3n_pl on March 18, 2017, 03:15:49 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 18, 2017, 02:27:21 PM

That version didn't gather much support if any. Bitcoin scales very inefficiently on the first layer, that's why it requires a secondary layer.

This is why I propose to use BOTH SegWit and Adaptive Block Size (Bitcoin ABS? XD )

I think only the following client implementations make sense for *compromise*, *consensus* or whatever:
Core: Segwit
Bitpay: SegWit + Adapative Block size - although I don't know how resistant it is to being gamed.
BitcoinEC: SegWit + Emergent Consensus - Already *praised* by ViaBTC (see here: https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/842748341767290880) [1].

bitcoinEC.. lets just see

hmm
i wonder..
yep another DCG portfolio

oh look bitcoinec maintained by blocktracker.... https://keybase.io/blocktracker/ oh Barry silbert.. of DCG sems to be a follower (edit: now not)
let me guess lauda is ok with..
core (->blockstream ->DCG)
KNots? (luke JR->blockstream ->DCG)
bitcoinEC(silbert->DCG)

i find it funny how lauda shouts loudly in favour of all these DCG portfolio corporations/teams. yet hasnt read the lines of code yet of any implementation

though bitcoinEC is a 'in concept' a step in the right direction wise to move bitcoin forward. by having dynamics. im shocked at the ones jumping in advocating it without peer reviewing first