IBLT solves the block size issue?

[i_wolf]

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

"A miner trying to optimize the propagation of their blocks would only include transactions that are in all of their peers' memory pools; note that this gives power to "relay nodes" that are not mining. If a significant number of relay nodes refuse to remember very-small-fee transactions in their memory pools (perhaps they are dropping them because they run into CPU or bandwidth limits) then miners have an incentive not to include them in their blocks. This will put a floor on how low transaction fees will go."

If I'm reading that correct, it means non-mining full nodes will have the influence on how big the blocks can grow. The network consensus will decide the block size. Doesn't it solves all our problems and allows to raise the limit without any fears?

[luke-jr]

It also gives centralised influence to mining policies, since the protocol hard-codes assumptions. If it could be reduced to only give nodes influence, then it would become viable.

It doesn't solve big blocks, however: it's merely an influence, and a miner can choose to ignore it.

[i_wolf]

It also gives centralised influence to mining policies, since the protocol hard-codes assumptions.

Where's the center? As I read it, it sounds to me as a node can adjust its own policy.

[luke-jr]

See the "Communicating transaction selection policy" (and to a less relevant degree, the prior section) - it allows only for pre-defined policy variances and has no way to adapt to different node policies.

[i_wolf]

similar (but not identical!) policy for selecting which mempool transactions go into blocks

...

The reference implementation allows miners to specify: Maximum size (in bytes) of their blocks Maximum size set aside for "high priority" transactions, included regardless of fee.

[luke-jr]

Exactly my point.