what a laugh.
before Peter's paper, Cripplecoiner's were arguing how IBLT wasn't proven, practical, needed or likely to be accepted since we had SC's and LN on the horizon.
now that the argument has changed, they hold up IBLT as "inevitable" and destined to undermine the propagation latency of blocks that Peter's theory relies upon.
such duplicity.
before Peter's paper, Cripplecoiner's were arguing how IBLT wasn't proven, practical, needed or likely to be accepted since we had SC's and LN on the horizon.
now that the argument has changed, they hold up IBLT as "inevitable" and destined to undermine the propagation latency of blocks that Peter's theory relies upon.
such duplicity.
Care to support this with quotes or you are just pulling things out your ass as is the norm for you?
Who are the "cripplecoiners" in a story where the debate didn't quite form yet?
solex, who has been one of the threads most prominent experts on IBLT, should be able to back up my claim of Blockstream core dev resistance to implementing IBLT. furthermore, all one has to know is that the original IBLT proposal was made by Gavin and you know how Todd and BS react to anything Gavin.