Topic: 1MB vs Gavincoin video explained in 3 minutes - page 2. (Read 2841 times)

we need blockchain size increase but step by step ---

1. 2015 : 1 MB
2. 2016 : 2 MB
3. 2018 : 4 MB
4. 2020 : 6 MB
5. 2022 : 8 MB
....................
....................
& finally 20 MB. I think 20 MB is enough

I had this same notion. 

If 20MB will 'break' bitcoin, then what about 19? what about 18? will 17MB fuck things up?  Will 15?, 14?, what about 12MB? 5MB? 1.1MB. Somewhere in there is a point which doesn't mess things up.  It is not clear to me why 20MB will cause disaster. 

The notion that small nodes will go away with 20MB just makes me want to do XT even more.  This is raging bullshit.  AntiXT people need to think up a better argument than that or they've surely lost their attempt to force everyone into BitStream and its stupid side chains plan.

Exactly.  These guys want you to use their 'off blockchain' system. This introduces a WORLD of new problems.  Those side chains will have remarkable failure modes we can't anticipate today.  Changing to 20Mb is a tiny change likely to disturb almost nothing.  Changing to sidechains is freaking crazy!
Their argument that nodes will have to close down and only huge miners will remain is total rubbish. KnC and other mega miners are a result of conditions not related to blocksize.  Tiny nodes can buy a 2 Tera drive for about $60 these days.  Big blocks aren't that hard to digest for small miners.

He can't really know or decide what would be best for the ecosystem. This raises the question if Gavin should be able to decide or not? They are after all kind of trying to force XT. I guess we will have to wait to see what is going to happen.
Every solution has its cons.
I think that most of us here know that things have to change. The problem is, however how to change it?

We can pretend all we want.. We all know something has to change, no matter what.

The way we do it, will determine the integrity of the people doing it. If your reasons for doing it, is pure and to improve the Bitcoin community, you are on the right track. If you do it to improve your own individual agenda, you are setting yourself up for failure, because it will be exposed later.

Lately it seems as though this has more to do with control and other hidden agendas than anything else... and that is the sad part. 

we created a market on the likelihood of a raise of the block size before mid March 2015. Recently the likelihood moved from 10% to around 30%. However - the volume is still low so that doesn't mean too much: https://www.fairlay.com/event/category/bitcoin/blockchain/all/?lt=1

Finally I understand the whole 1MB vs Gavincoin talk. THANKS to the person who made that video.
In my optionion is the idea about buyin a cup of coffee with bitcoin just stupid.
This could be handled by payment processsors (like to video say) so we can finally stop all that talk about that bitcoin has too long confirmation time. Well even though I hate altcoins, thoese can be used to buy coffee as well if you like.

Bitcoin should be used for larger transactions, online sale, cars, houses ect. where the confirm time is irrelevent.

Before the video I kinda supported the 20Mb..... but am I convist that keeping the 1MB is the right choice.

That may or may not be the case.  It is a viable argument that the Bitcoin ecosystem contains a lot of participants who don't need it and who are doing it harm and causing excess risk a long as they are around.

It very well could be a gift if a lot of them were siphoned off, and I can think of few sieves which would be more nicely sized than the 20MB-plus-exponential-growth, damn-the-centralization-full-speed-ahead. govt-is-powerless-against-us one.  The piper's best tune to draw them away would be 'XT is the real Bitcoin.'

Wow, is this a video from 2013 for real? Who would have thought it'd become so relevant again. What do we know about the creation of this video?

Edit: Todd is the word

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-video-why-the-blocksize-limit-keeps-bitcoin-free-and-decentralized-208200

But it is Gavincoin, isn't it? "XT" is what they would love to call it cuz that sounds to fresh and modern but really it's Geavin/Hearncoin and got nothing to do with the consensus based 'Bitcoin core' we are all using right now.
Gavincoin is an alt and everyone would be better off if these clowns would release it as an seperate coin instead of vandalizing bitcoin network.

With "Gavincoin" in the title, how could the video possibly be worth wasting time on?

No FUD about it, and in fact my goals are pretty much the opposite of 'elitist' in the sense that I very much want everyone who wishes and needs to to benefit by the existence of Bitcoin.  That cannot happen if Bitcoin is destroyed in the sense that it becomes just another PayPal with the same basic set of failure modes.

As I was reading Satoshi's whitepaper for the first time I could see that the system would not scale beyond the 'elitist' use-case while retaining some of the unique properties which were actually interesting to me.  I did, however, see that it could potentially provide a foundation upon which some of my aspirations for it could be built.  I took my initial position on the hope that this would eventually occur although at the time I considered it a long-shot.  I still do, but I have more hope now than I ever have and Maxwell's run-down of the work that various participants under the Blockstream banner was very helpful.  I sense that just as this work has given me hope it has caused some level of panic on the part of those who are threatened by a uncontrolable Bitcoin.

Well I've wanted to point out that some of the "nonsense" in the video could be explained by the date of upload (creation). The situation now is definitely much different that it was back then.
My view has definitely changed since I got hold on information in regards to different solutions e.g. side chains, lightning network. I guess people also don't realize that no solution is "perfect". Most of the time I've encountered individuals either thinking that increasing the block size will solve all problems; increasing the fees; side chains and what not.

However, I agree with you. These 'discussions' have worn me out ,and from the looks of it, they aren't going to solve anything.

And yet this whole mess is as relevant today as it was 2 years ago when the video was posted.

Every time I see another post about this topic (after the hundreds of similar threads I've participated in over the past few years) I just roll my eyes.

It's like people seem to think that somehow, by starting a new thread, they will finally win their argument, and everyone else will finally see things their way.

Everyone agrees that "something" needs to change, but they each have their own tightly held belief about what that "something" is.  There are VERY FEW at all that are willing to consider any alternative idea with an open mind and an honest look at the facts.

It's so much easier to grab a few poorly thought out catchphrases and repeat them ad nauseum while implying (or outright shouting) that anybody that disagrees is either a mush minded idiot or has an agenda to destroy bitcoin.

Four legs good, two legs bad!

Well if the noobs would fall for it, Id say it would help the cause. 
But seriously, someone should make one for raising the cap, preferably with truths though.

To new users of Bitcoin/bitcoin, this video is very good at arguing against increasing the limit.
One way it does so is by arguing that the original intention of bitcoin will be eroded and destroyed.
Most new users know Bitcoin/bitcoin as being "freedom from centralization/banks/governments/agencies/[fill in the blank]/etc".

Whether this video is factually correct or not, is not important. Propaganda is propaganda and has 5,931 views.

To most users of Bitcoin/bitcoin, they do not understand or wish to understand any of the facts or fundamentals. (IMO).
The blocksize limit argument, in relation to the masses, will be won by emotional arguments and statements such as these.
(Eventhough, I believe currently, most users are for an increase, and up to around 20 MB.)

I think someone, who supports raising the 1MB cap, who has the know how and skill, should make a video in response.
I would very much enjoy seeing and hearing the opposing arguments in the same style and fashion as this one.

Edit: Spelling.

coinbase is pro fork.

and the video is idiotic.

It doesn't make sense to me either. I wonder why it is hard to spend 1 minute doing research to find posts that show that the actual tps is 2-3 and not 7?
Even though I do not favor bloat (as syncing might become painful unless we have pruning), there is no way that we would need "expensive data centers" to run nodes.

Side chains and similar technology will definitely benefit Bitcoin in the future, however I do not think that 1 MB will be sufficient even for larger transactions only in the future. Would it not be better to do this now in addition to buying time with it? Although I'm not favoring 20 MB blocks, 4 or 8 MB would be better for me.
That should quiet down some people whose only reason is "centralization".


It looks like most of the people didn't notice the date of the upload:
That's 2 years ago.

Now how many punched cards, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card, does it take to store this video? Furthermore how many trees have to be cut down to make these punched cards?  Distribution of video in digital form is totally unsustainable and very damaging to the environment.

Peter Todd was the primary driving force behind the creation of the vid to the best of my knowledge, and I personally contributed significantly in a financial sense.

Probably the most important take-away is the image of a transparent processor where operations could not be hidden (if there were market demand for one.)  Coinbase is absolutely not in that category and to this date no real implementation of such off-chain solutions displaying this characteristic really exist, but I must admit that there well could be some which I am not aware of since I don't pay that close attention.  One way or another, it is fairly easy to balance risk between off-chain providers and core holdings.  No matter how shitty the off-chain implementation the option always exist to do this sort of risk balancing and this largely blows the ubiquitous argument that off-chain providers cans steal all your money out of the water.  Even in the worst of circumstanced they can only steal what you let them.

Contrast this with the ability of an entity to steal one's money via fungibility attacks on Bitcoin itself such as blacklisting/whitelisting which is an across-the-board attack.  It is also, parenthetically, something which has characterized Mike Hearn's interest in Bitcoin since at least 2011.  Ponder on that a little before 'upgrading' to XT.  Or don't.  I'm actually not totally adverse to having the Pied Piper lead a lot of you idiots away and Bitcoin will be the better for it.

The video was made before there was any real discussion of sidechains and the 'two-way-peg'.  Also before crypto methods of having transactions 'revert' such that not only could it be the case that an off-chain provider could not take your money as his own (which would solve 99% of theft problems in and of itself) but there likely are ways to have it so that you could eventually have your balance restored.  Or even more if the off-chain provider posted a bond which, again, could in theory be validated via transparency in operations.

Between nearly perfect proxy behavior for the Bitcoin circulation base, transparency, and crypto-extensions which significantly mitigate the counter-party risk, and the breadth of mutually conflicting niches that purpose tuned off-chain solutions could serve, they are hugely promising.  Those who would attack Bitcoin have no choice but to do it quickly before sidechains come on-line even if their attacks are pre-mature.  It's the last best hope.