Quote from: Odalv on June 21, 2015, 07:17:28 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 06:56:46 PM

Quote from: Odalv on June 21, 2015, 06:33:36 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 06:27:43 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 21, 2015, 06:21:59 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 21, 2015, 06:16:49 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 21, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form. An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle. An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course. It vastly expands the attack surface.

perhaps. then a different solution will be made. key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come. if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner. Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good. we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.

Not increasing block size will enable to start transaction's fee discovery and it creates environment for innovations. This innovations will reduce fees and move transaction to SC. BItcoin will stay decentralized and more powerful.

Facepalm.

The debate has evolved considerably since last October.