Sure, when you scale up the number of connections each node has to have, you can always ensure very low hop counts.
Clearly, this doesn't apply for random graphs (as we have in Bitcoin) so you would need some kind of fancy management overhead that constructs those special graphs in some decentralized way. Also, you would have to check what effects those 100+ node connections actually have: are there any new attack surfaces regarding DOS, net split? Are slow nodes doomed to fail because they suddenly have to process and rebroadcast all that crap from the other 100 nodes.

I am sure it is doable somehow, but whoever tried to implement a proper, resilient Chord P2P network probably figured out quickly that it's virtually impossible to properly handle all the different side cases. For this type of graph, I bet it the task would be even harder. Probably, the graph structure maintaining overhead would become the limiting factor at some point.

But I am very interested in hearing your ideas, if you have some cool solution to such issues. I could never figure it out.

Apart from block-size and block-time changes, your other proposition (from another thread) is a radical change to PoW algorithm. I am not someone who understands the game-theory, the graph theory and associated higher mathematics to judge on decentralization aspects of a mining algorithm. After much reading and thought, I came to an understanding that PoW works. The history of its development shows that various such ideas of "Proof-of-X" were tried but failed to pass the trustlessness criterion. This made me decide that bitcoin is my best bet. I am sure that the whales invested in this are also aiming for stability and not radical experimentation.

If the obstacle is not technical but political then you need to generate enough information to help people make a decision as to why a change in algorithm or block times can be feasible. This needs code, testing and evidence. Hence, a testnet. It will be far more easier to convince people that way. Or maybe if you could point us to a peer-reviewed discussion on these topics.

As i admitted above, there are technical aspects I don't understand yet. What I do understand is that Bitcoin's PoW works and has been working through the past decade. What i know is that a whole hardware manufacturing industry supports it with increasing hashpower and that hashpower is what keeps it valuable. I understand that mining has a centralization aspect but I also know that the entities involved will be wary of risking a self-goal by targeting the very thing that keeps them rich. As a believer in bitcoin's ideals, I hope and cheer for news that mining hardware may soon see entry of other major players leading to some resolution of the issue that you wish to address.

Changing the mining algorithm so as to wreck uncertainty on the miners worldwide would be a bad-disruptive thing to do, not the good-disruptive. How disruptive changing network specifications would be, like you propose here, should be demonstrable on a test net..

A lot of people including Greg Maxwell have pointed out that any technical discussion here at BCT has lost significance because of the way it quickly gets personal/ political. Here's what you said in your post:
In my opinion, accusing someone of spreading FUD as part of their 'strategy' is not technical criticism. (which you should focus on and which no doubt will be welcomed). You cannot hope to call them FUDDers, Dogma-ridden and expect them not to think that you have an ulterior agenda..There have been too many of those out here..¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Many people don't view it as extreme conservatism. Its accepting that you don't know what you don't know. There are enough examples of lower blocktimes, bigger block-sizes and there is nothing to suggest that they won't ever face bottlenecks. There is the Github way to do it and it says it well.
With that, I'll bow out of this discussion and leave you to point us to information on why what you say should work. Maybe some of that material you have been promising for a while. It will be good learning for us.

I don't see anything reckless here:
With current situation of mining, dominated by pools, no worries about network diameter, they have already resolved it and for my proposed pool-free protocol, it would be taken care of,  properly.

 
Heart is basically diverged from bitcoin original idea: a p2p electronic cash system. He is a bitcoin-as-gold guy. Don't bother listening to him.

We need bitcoin as the monetary system of the future. Banks should back-off, any other proposal is void, imo.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My PoCW proposal keeps SHA256 unchanged, the only disruptive aspect is eliminating pooling pressure and the need for pools (not the possibility).

No, I don't agree. Spreading FUD about a mysterious fragility in bitcoin and claiming every serious improvement proposal as a potentially dangerous move, is a regular practice of these guys and should be denounced properly. Nobody has a privilege or diplomatic immunity to act like that and to be exempt from criticism.

Plus, I think it is very normal in a technical discussion to accuse the other side of such a misconduct when s/he is just handwaving about mysterious threats and consequences.  

For instance the whole Buterin trilemma thing is a FUD that targets average crypto enthusiasts and users to give up hopelessly with having a decentralized, secure, and well performing system and instead accept his weird proposals about PoS and weak subjectivity (believe it? 'weak' shittiness).

Analogically, when someone claims reducing block time like 2-4 times in a fully decentralized mining scene will lead to centralization, he is spreading FUD, simply because there is no evidence or technical proof supporting such a claim. It is just a FUD.

When it comes to protocols we design and implement, there is almost nothing that we don't know.

@Wind_FURY,
It is the first time I'm hearing about this fork 

Just check their web site, 

Too many forks out there, many of them with obvious poisonous incentives, many others with little or zero history of discussion and theoretical efforts, ...

My proposals, both for block time decrease and collaborative work are suggested for improving current bitcoin network in scales it is experiencing. I don't understand how a coin/fork with few million dollars market cap and few penta hash mining power would need any kind of improvement and how useful it would be as a testbed for such improvements.

So, thanks but no, I'm not interested.

At least they're willing to actually code it and put their idea into practice, which is seemingly more than you're willing or able to do.  Get it coded, put it on a testnet, show everyone that it works without sacrificing any of the current qualities the current userbase sees value in.  Until then, thanks but no, we're not interested.  

I've pretty much given up my pursuit of an adaptive/dynamic blocksize.  I used to think like you do.  I couldn't see a good reason why we shouldn't be pursuing what seemed like a really good idea.  But I can't code it, no one else is volunteering to do so, which means it's clearly not happening.  Consider that the same is happening with your ideas right now.  You can't force these things.  Either people get on board, or they don't.

Im up for discussing the game theory involved in the different proposals and im not discouraging you to continue working on it and hope we can finally see the code eventually.

But nonetheless we've discussed Richard Heart's claims on blocksize and blocktime. You said he was a "bitcoin as digital gold" charlatan and to be ignored.

I claim that this is a mistake. Most "bitcoin as digital gold" guys are the biggest whales in Bitcoin, in other words, these are the main guys you must convince since in any hardfork people vote with their coins at the end of the day.

My point is that the "bitcoin as digital gold" guys are not going to give you an inch of space for the tradeoffs involved in your proposal. They are usually extremely conservative and consider Bitcoin good enough for their needs and don't care if the rest cannot afford transactions or if it's too slow or whatnot.

So yeah, don't ignore their opinion or your hardfork will get dumped hard.

@Doomad
I don't understand how your example would help proving your point? @Evil-Knievel made an argument about Moore Bound and I mathematically proved it not being applicable because this is a very high bound for a graph with a degree of 100 (totally feasible) and a diameter of 4 (interestingly short) ...
So, who is not listening/reading here?  

But you want to use the Bitcoin network as your "testbed" for your ideas, and then criticize the Bitcoin Core developers of they reject them? Hahaha.

Plant your feet on the ground, my friend. The Core developers are doing a good job maintaining the network's decentralization and security. That must not change.