in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt
still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times
some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time
Why? Segwit is what scalability is about -- optimization, making throughput more efficient so that increased capacity doesn't mean increased load on the system. Why do you have to make it so political, implying that it is a "proxy" for anything? Segwit is the best of both worlds. Buying time is the idea here....with weak blocks and IBLT down the road, block size will be less of an issue as bandwidth pressures taper off. You guys act like bitcoin has no limitations.
If we're achieving roughly the same capacity, what's the obsession with hard forking
right now? What is the urgency -- particularly when most devs and much of the community doesn't support it?
We should be concerned first and foremost with retaining bitcoin's decentralized and therefore censorship-free qualities. That means that increased capacity requires optimization (like Segwit), as bandwidth is the primary pressure on node operators....not simply bloating blocks as large as adoption will allow.
