Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 08:23:13 AM

Find me an implementation that does this change whilst safely covering for quadratic hashing with limitations?

The quadratic hashing issue is a non-problem. Any miner that creates a block that takes inordinate time to validate will find himself bankrupted by other miners who continue hashing on the same parent to find a peer solved block. Such a peer solved block will validate well before the aberrant block, leading to the aberrant block being orphaned. 'Problem' solved. With the incentives as they exist today. Unchanged.

Quote from: -ck on February 14, 2017, 08:33:28 AM

what a pure blocksize increase brings to the table in terms of quadratic scaling slowdowns

Merely an unneeded approach to a non-problem. See above.

Quote

Additionally touting the slim block submission as some technical advantage when all it leads to is every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks on every block change is a significant step backwards.

If you are going to (try to) rebut the article, how about you actually rebut what it contains? There are exactly zero mentions of 'slim block submission' in the article. Do try to keep up - I don't think you have any idea what Xthin is.

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 09:06:12 AM

That "emergent consensus" thing is a complete revamp of the security model,

Emergent consensus is -- once you strip away all the trappings of centralized planning -- the exact security model Bitcoin has enjoyed since day one.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 09:06:40 AM

However the block reward and halving dates would have to be updated, I guess the BTC core team is too stupid to use a calculator.

Not exactly - reward and halving are not calculated to occur on specific dates, but rather block heights. We speak in terms of rough dates merely to simplify cognition for us humans.

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 09:40:53 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 09:35:06 AM

We already have a risk variable called the nr. of Bitcoin nodes.
With LN you introduce another risk variable, called the nr. of LN hubs.

No. The LN hubs or lack thereof would just make routing harder. It does not pose a risk in the context that you're referring to.

You're slipping Lauda - your statements are usually at least semi-defensible from at least one narrow angle. This one is downright ludicrous no matter what viewpoint you come at it.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 09:57:33 AM

So @rusty_lightning is a liar? And he's lying through his teeth? And that's pathetic?

The only way that statement is not a lie, is be re-defining what Bitcoin actually _is_. The fact that you are trying to paper over this obvious observation is what is pathetic.

inb4: haha! you're pulling a slick willie!