Quote from: cypherdoc on June 11, 2015, 03:12:19 AM

marcus of augustus stooping to new lows:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39bwwn/arguments_in_the_bitcoin_block_size_debate_an/cs2f6fm

talking about bitcoin-killing extensions, game overs, and ELE "extinction level events" Roll Eyes

Your inability to remember programming facts and tie them together appears to cause your myopic chatterbox to ululate incessantly but fortunately not inexorably.

Larger blocks are a centralization accelerant for the reasons I explained upthread (which was mirrored in some points to you posted at Reddedit by nullc et al). You or others rebutted that IBLT resolves the centralized threat (that is due to higher orphan rate due to propagation delays for less well endowed full nodes) because all the transactions are in the mempool. I and others have pointed out that IBLT is just sugar coated obfuscation of centralization because all full nodes still have to process all transactions (note the variances in mempools that IBLT can tolerate must be very small) driving full node resource requirements up (forcing them off of home connections and onto well connected hosting which is more easily regulated by the cartel via their control of governments), else trust a full node.

Centralization enables an ELE event which is quite plausible and has been explained by myself several times in this thread. That is where the cartel masters via Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, 21 Inc, etc move their zombie masses onto to a fork (probably a pegged side chain in order to avoid the WMD war with the MPEX GavinCoin short) which has the technical attributes they want such as central bank controlled debasement rates and mandatory KYC on all transactions, then they can wreck havoc on the Core chain causing users to move their value out of it and to this cartel side chain. The sort of havoc they can do on Core include for example G7 (perhaps G20) countries regulation of pools forcing KYC to accompany all transactions. As the Core chain becomes a minority chain (declining transaction volume) its hashrate will plummet and then the cartel can buyout some mining farms (which have become worth much less due to the plummet) to 50+% attack the Core chain. While the cartel is moving its masses onto Core driving up the transaction volume for ASIC farms, thus increasing the size of loans to create them, thus when they pull the rug (by moving the zombie masses to their pegged side chain) these ASIC mining farms will go bankrupt.

Larger blocks forces more users to delegate to full nodes (with or without IBLT), providing more top-down organization for the cartel to work its way towards this end goal. When they are ready to wreck havoc on the Core chain later, the larger the blocks, then the more they can more easily wreck havoc against the remaining full nodes they don't control. For example, undulating resource requirements by moving their zombie masses' transactions on and off the Core chain, can cause remaining full nodes to commit to higher cost hosting while capturing only a fraction of the transaction revenue. The attacks that larger blocks enable are probably more than I can enumerate in one post.