Seeing you posts, Adam, I'm really excited by your apparent lack of understanding of the technical side of Bitcoin. I figured, maybe you could consider refraining from posting nonsense, and educate yourself first?
Because I see no point arguing with you, when you can't grasp some relatively simple technical ideas.
Quit with the lame "Its beneath me to explain" angle. If you have an issue, state it, and support your contention with a
relevant tech reference.
That's what I usually do, when there's hope for reasonable discussion.
Or you can explain it to me. I've nearly 15 years experience in writing network correlators and rating engines for the mobile teleco industry, so there is little you can teach me on HF data propagation that i don't know.
Explain what? That the network can't handle 1GB blocks without completely redefining what Bitcoin is?
What Matt Corallo's relay network does is trying to lower orphan rates for miners. It has nothing to do with increasing network throughput (tx rate), only lowers the amount of data to be transmitted with a block. After all, full nodes will still have to download full transaction data.
Moreover, it depends on two unreliable assumptions:
1) participating miners are cooperative, i.e. only/mostly include txs that other miners have in their mempools.
2) that participants' mempools are highly synchronized.
The latter is especially speculative when we try to project it onto the whole network. If we could make sure mempools are synchronized, we wouldn't need to have blockchain in the first place. But nodes' relay/mempool acception policy is highly customizable. E.g. during the recent stress test, many users had to increase their fee acception thresholds so that their nodes are stable. That means very different mempools for users.
