Quote from: The One on May 23, 2017, 09:19:34 AM

Quote from: kelceyott on May 23, 2017, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: The One on May 23, 2017, 08:58:49 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on May 23, 2017, 04:31:04 AM

Quote from: stdset on May 23, 2017, 04:25:04 AM

Quote from: d5000 on May 23, 2017, 01:10:06 AM

The item that mostly worries me from the proposal is that it doesn't address quadratic validation time.

Solution is pretty trivial:

Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner

To prevent worsening block verification time because of the O(N^2) hashing
problem, the simple restriction that transactions cannot be larger than 1Mb
has been kept. Therefore the worse-case of block verification time has only
doubled.

Yes, and in fact, transactions of 1 MB are ridiculous, because they could easily be replaced by a tree structure of smaller transactions, changing the N^2 into N log N.

All the arguments against "bigger blocks" are bogus. Non-mining nodes have nothing to do with decentralization (of power), and the N^2 time has to do with the size of individual transactions, which have been erroneously left to be much much too big from the initial design. There is simply no point in having such big single transactions.

And why it that others can't see it?

The majority of those who reject larger block numbers are miners, I'm not sure my answer, but as far as I understand, if the number of blocks is bigger, the transaction fee will be smaller, and that is detrimental to the miners.

No. Bigger blocks = more txs = more smaller fees = higher value of BTC.

One could argue bigger blocks = mempool drained and dumped or sold, lower Tx fees due to larger block space and increased volatility due to lack of Tx backlog.