To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates.
TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality
You and hdbuck add nothing to this debate. Nothing you've said in this post can be backed up. You retract from it. You're polluting the debate.
I can certainly point you to a whole thread filled with Adam's poor understanding of the networks' architecture... but you'll have to dig for it yourself if you really care
by all means do dip it up.
i recall being mostly right, except for the gossip network, but that too clearly needs improvements infact the very day i was talking about it, gavin was writing up a paper about the efficiency ( or lack thereof ) in bitcoin's current gossip network implementation.
bitcoin is not a holly ledger, and yes there is much improvements to be made at its core.
You were spewing complete non sense about block compression and the mere suggestion that the network can support 250x more load using a couple of coding improvements is straight out of retardlandia.