For those worried about the scalability of the design, remember that this design is not set in stone. It's merely a starting point. Using voting and motions, shareholders will be able to alter the design over time to improve it and make it faster. Here is something I read on the Peercointalk chat box...
Quote
pillow: I still believe that Open Transactions is _SUPERIOR_ to B&C way of doing it... _but_ my bet is that B&C will morph into Open Transaction like style
Open Transactions has been in development for four years. This is an indication that it is not simple, and it is difficult to know how much longer it will take to complete, if it is ever completed.
My design is intended to be as simple and reliable as possible. It isn't the fastest approach (in terms of settlement time) and it uses more resources than some proposed solutions. However, I am confident it can be delivered more quickly and for less money than the alternatives. The iterative approach I am employing has been proven more likely to succeed than large ambitious projects full of complexity and uncertainty. It is worth noting the more complicated solutions haven't been delivered yet.
Sentinelrv is certainly correct that B&C Exchange will be iteratively developed for as long as there is funding to do so. Take a look at this relevant section from the design paper:
Quote
Future optimizations
Some observers may have concerns about the scalability of the solution. The initial design can scale to handle approximately 10 orders per second, along with all the other transactions needed to support orders. There are many changes that can be made in the future to improve scalability. They require additional development, so it doesn't make sense economically to implement them at this time. As network latency reduces over time due to hardware improvements block intervals can be collapsed, validation messages can be merely broadcast but not placed on the blockchain, a derivative of Cryptonite's mini-blockchain can be employed, delegates can be employed, etc. The solution proposed here can be evolved to scale far beyond 10 orders per second.
Some observers may have concerns about the scalability of the solution. The initial design can scale to handle approximately 10 orders per second, along with all the other transactions needed to support orders. There are many changes that can be made in the future to improve scalability. They require additional development, so it doesn't make sense economically to implement them at this time. As network latency reduces over time due to hardware improvements block intervals can be collapsed, validation messages can be merely broadcast but not placed on the blockchain, a derivative of Cryptonite's mini-blockchain can be employed, delegates can be employed, etc. The solution proposed here can be evolved to scale far beyond 10 orders per second.
The initial version of B&C Exchange is in a sense just another iteration of earlier work. First the team and I developed the Peershare template. Once it was proven to work in on a public test network, we created the Nu network. B&C Exchange will be built on that code base and use most of the features of NuShares and NuBits. It is just another iteration. As such, I am confident it can be delivered. I wouldn't want to have to deliver Ethereum or Open Transactions, by the way. I'm just not at all confident I could do it. B&C Exchange is a much more modest proposal.
