1MB vs Gavincoin video explained in 3 minutes

[gustav]

Found this online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

Makes sense to me. Thought i drop it here.

[pedrog]

Was it paid by Coinbase?

[DannyHamilton]

Doesn't make sense to me.

Seems to use fear and emotion as a propaganda tool to keep people from paying attention to the details (of which it gets several important ones wrong).

As just one example, 1 MB blocks don't realistically support "7 transactions per second".  It's really more like 3 transactions per second.

Also, there is nothing "magical" about 1 MB.  I think we could almost all agree that 1 TB blocks would be "too big" and that 1 KB blocks would be "too small".  Somewhere between those extremes is a number that is "just right", but that number probably changes over time.  Why are you so certain that the correct number today is 1 MB, and not 750 KB or 1.75 MB?

Mining costs will continue to increase regardless of the block size.  It was designed into the nature of Bitcoin from the very beginning.  Satoshi said so himself. So large powerful and regulated pools will occur regardless of blocksize.

Besides, how are "large powerful and regulated off-chain payment processors" any different than "large powerful and regulated pools"?

[not altcoin hitler]

Great video. Will share. Thanks.

[chakra74]

I guess I'm a large financial institution.   That video was total bullshit.  Even if the block size magically jumped to 20 MB right away, I could still run a node in my house with no problems.  

It's hard to wrap my mind around the fact that there's this minority of people who can't understand basic facts.  They seem too smart to actually believe the crap they say so there must be alternative motivation.  When there's billions of dollars at stake, there's always going to be paid shills or reasons to try and destroy a system.  Maybe they are trying to knock Bitcoin down or they are trying to corner the market with their centralized solutions.

[Xialla]

nice and professionally created video, even I disagree. anyway, it was already discussed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208200.0 and site not working at all:(

[hello_good_sir]

Has Gavin changed his proposal to a one-time increase to 20MB or is it still an increase to 20MB with an automatic 50% increase per year?  I would support the first, and strongly oppose the second.

[pedrog]

Has Gavin changed his proposal to a one-time increase to 20MB or is it still an increase to 20MB with an automatic 50% increase per year?  I would support the first, and strongly oppose the second.

Check here: http://gavinandresen.ninja/bigger-blocks-another-way

He's pushing for the 20MB increase.

[tvbcof]

Was it paid by Coinbase?

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.

[ArticMine]

Found this online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

Makes sense to me. Thought i drop it here.

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.

[Lauda]

Doesn't make sense to me.

Seems to use fear and emotion as a propaganda tool to keep people from paying attention to the details (of which it gets several important ones wrong).

As just one example, 1 MB blocks don't realistically support "7 transactions per second".  It's really more like 3 transactions per second.

Also, there is nothing "magical" about 1 MB.  I think we could almost all agree that 1 TB blocks would be "too big" and that 1 KB blocks would be "too small".  Somewhere between those extremes is a number that is "just right", but that number probably changes over time.  Why are you so certain that the correct number today is 1 MB, and not 750 KB or 1.75 MB?

Mining costs will continue to increase regardless of the block size.  It was designed into the nature of Bitcoin from the very beginning.  Satoshi said so himself. So large powerful and regulated pools will occur regardless of blocksize.

Besides, how are "large powerful and regulated off-chain payment processors" any different than "large powerful and regulated pools"?

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:

Published on May 16, 2013

That's 2 years ago.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Was it paid by Coinbase?

coinbase is pro fork.

and the video is idiotic.

[AgentofCoin]

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.

[AgentofCoin]

To new users of Bitcoin/bitcoin, this video is very good at arguing against increasing the limit.
One why 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.

Well would they be allowed to make up any information they want and say that if you keep blocks at 1mb size that satoshi will come out of the wall and take your first born? It would just make things a bit more even.

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.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
That's 2 years ago.

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!

[Lauda]

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.
-snip-

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.

[tvbcof]

Was it paid by Coinbase?

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.
...

So you blatantly spread fud and are an elitist who thinks bitcoin shouldn't be for everyone. I wonder how much you have invested into Bitstream because you have your head so far into the clouds and out of reality about the future of sidechains. I thought you were a pretty logical guy with some good points but this just shows you are obviously an extremist to contribute to Fud and propaganda.

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.

[Bit_Happy]

Found this online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

Makes sense to me. Thought i drop it here.

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

[gustav]

Found this online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

Makes sense to me. Thought i drop it here.

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

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.

[alani123]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208200.0