I'm going to be nice. I'm helping the XT'ers out.
Why not propose a serious implementation of IBLT before attempting to popularise a hostile chain-fork attempt? It's clear that the latter strategy isn't working, but guess what? If you could do a successful trial of IBLT on testnet, then your position is strengthened a great deal. The mistake, as it seems to me, is to try to do it the other way round: push hard for the 8MB fork without IBLT to mitigate the bandwidth issues, when that's what all of Andresen's blocksize research was predicated on to begin with.
Why did Gavin offer an implementation of the outcome of his experiments into changing the blocksize before he implemented the fundamentals of the research?
Because the network can handle an increased blocksize without IBLT. Furthermore we should not rely on unfinished technology when faced with increased transaction volume. If it can be implemented that would be great. There is also another aspect to this which I found interesting:
The problem, a miner solving a Bitcoin block want to get that block out to all the other miners as fast as possible. If some other miner, B, solves a block roughly at the same time, a race starts. The block that reaches a majority of the network’s hashing power first will probably be the winning block.
This means that there’s incentive for the miner to keep the block small so that it propagates the network faster. Smaller blocks means fewer transactions. Fewer transactions means higher fees for end users. Higher fees means less adoption.
Therefore if IBLT is not implemented then there will be an incentive for miners to keep the blocks smaller unless the transaction fees outweigh the benefit of doing so, which considering your position I would not think that this would be such a bad outcome.
... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys.
