Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 29, 2015, 01:58:16 AM

Your mistake here is assuming the Gavinistas have any interest in, much less the ability to, participate in an honest debate, whereby they apply the same criticisms and expectations they put upon Team Core to themselves and their own goal of larger blocks.

They have yet to demonstrate any such interest, nor the ability in terms of intellectual consistency required to develop one.

This is a blatant rewrite of history. Misrepresenting opposing positions is your speciality.
Gavin did a series of blog posts about why on-chain scaling is necessary, and the pros and cons of the change to make this feasible.
Satoshi made it perfectly clear in several posts that he wanted VISA-scale volumes on-chain, and the limit was temporary.
Jeff has written a blog post to go with BIP 100 explaining his perspective. Rusty Russell and David Hudson have also made it clear how scaling is needed and why.

It is Core Dev who take the position that it is premature, too risky, want to force higher fees (too bad for ordinary users) etc etc.
They offer no alternative which is viable before the 1MB causes major problems to the ecosystem growth. LN is complex and too late, and unanswered questions remain about how decentralised its servers will be.

1MB will cripple Bitcoin. The Chinese miners know this and that is why we have >50% of the hashing power behind an open letter saying blocks up to 8MB are OK.
The 1MBers stick their heads into the sand by pretending that a problem of the near future does not exist.

It is also hypocritical to pump Monero based on it able to scale by supporting blocks >1MB. And it is irrelevant what year someone learned about Bitcoin to their being able to execute a trade on the knowledge of one coin potentially having crippled volumes and another not.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 28, 2015, 08:35:23 PM

Quote from: solex on July 28, 2015, 01:36:27 AM

IBLT is a known change which can help a lot with decentralised scaling.

IBLT is still somewhere between whitepaper and prototype, and won't really help scale until blocks are ~100s of MB.

According to Gavin, the relay network already plucked the low-hanging fruit for the short and medium term future:

Quote

TODO: measure Matt's approach against an IBLT approach. My guess is at small block sizes the simpler approach works better, but at some point IBLTs win.

Gavin says "Network usage should get cut in half as soon as we stop doing the simplest thing and re-broadcasting transactions twice."
http://gavintech.blogspot.co.nz/?view=classic

He means using IBLT, and IBLT is so powerful that it can squeeze a 100MB new block announcement into 1MB, the size in use today. It is also less work overall than LN or SC. i.e. simplest.

It does need prototyping, testing and benchmarking, and the breakeven point is unknown. But like JR's node services payment channels, it is a Cinderella of software where the focus of attention is mostly elsewhere.