Your comparison is wrong. Large blocks are not the one that change rules easily, instead big blockers were the ones that wanted to keep the basic protocol structure unchanged, and the small blockers were the ones who proposed a protocol change which was called SegWit. User nodes are important, but with SegWit protocol upgrade, non segwit nodes became irrelevant, they can't mine without causing a chain split, because they are incompatible, if the miners were separated into 2 camps of non segwit and segwit nodes, there would be a hardfork, therefore the major lie is that SegWit was a softfork. Long term focus is also a wrong approach, both camps have long term focus, while the small blockers came up with a derivative sidechain papermoney 2.0 network ideas as a scalability solution, big blockers were proponents of onchain scalability, those are the real only bitcoin guys that follow the Bitcoin whitepaper design, which had a scalability solution from the very beginning described in the whitepaper, section 7.
Funny you reference section 7, at which Satoshi postulates 4.2mb blocksize which Segwit attained. Anyway, the basic reality is that big blocks come at the expense of decentralization, something which Satoshi was dead set against. Segwit is indeed a soft fork, so is taproot.
From what i understand based on last few months of research bigger blocks allows for scaling and consistency in payment fee and smaller blocks less caller and higher transaction fees so this video explanation i could not quite agree with but im still in research mode
@@robt3407the 4.2 block size is deceptive because Blockstream changed the way they define block size and accounted for block weight instead to make it look like the blocks are bigger but it's STILL 7 transactions per second with no increase in throughput. Learn about it and discard the propaganda!
The limit was introduced to prevent spamming of small transactions that would have created blocks more than 32 mb which wasn´t the network able to process at the time. Back then there where no ASIC miner. Today this isn´t a problem.
Roger Ver himself gives a better explanation in his book "Hijacking Bitcoin." The audiobook is here on UA-cam. Definitely give it a full listen. Worth every second and the story is infuriating and sad. It pisses me off to no end that BTC is a mere faint shadow of what it could've been.
The problem here is that you have to stay consistent in your arguent. If you say that increasing block size would make running a node too difficult for normal people, than you have to apply the same criticism to Segwit. While Segwit technically did not inxrease block size, it effectively did increase block size. Sure, Segwit stores some of the data outside the block, this data still needs to be stored. Segwit is basically like hooking up a basket to the handlebars of your bike to carry more weight when your bike is already overloaded. But than claim the basket is carrying the extra weight, not the bike itself.
That's a naive take on what happened. People who wanted bigger blocks were no way going to be satisfied with just 2mb, they were clear about doing even bigger blocks as their ultimate goal. It's better they left Bitcoin to go make their own altcoins.
@@SAL-fs1mr It does not matter how much bigger blocks people wanted to go. raising the blocksize up to 2,4,8 mb would have been perfectly fine. It is not naive at all. It is arrogant to not realize how a perfectly fine engineering decision was undermined for a huge pivot it where bitcoin was going. One that ended up in BTC falling flat on its face in 2017. Nothing would be different for BTC if it had a capacity for 8MB. Only that millions of people could use it, instead of 5 Ln nerds
I always like to point out the inconsistencies of small blockers when it comes to free market principles. Shouldn’t the free market decide the block size every block?
There are Altcoins that do that. None of them come close in terms of market size compared to Bitcoin. So the free market decided bitcoin is good as it is with its fixed rules.
Clearly you were bias to BTC which is totally not the one white paper talks about and that is fine People who wants to limit to small block and make it like gold it is fine we give value in things we think is valuable anyway. But they need to change the name to SOV coin Store of value coin not Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin is p2p electronic cash system.
Este video está bastante sesgado, por varios motivos. No mencionas la censura en los foros de todo aquel que cuestionara el tamaño del bloque. No mencionas los mensajes de shatoshi diciendo que el tamaño del bloque a 1 mega era algo temporal para hacer ataques de spam, pero que se tendría que adaptar si había cada vez más adopción. No mencionas que btc core básicamente esta controlado por blockstream, una empresa con financiación de empresas como AXA o Mastercard. No mencionas que vitalik apoyaba a bitcoin cash, y que su intención inicial era desarrollar ethereum sobre bitcoin. No mencionas los ataques a los mineros que preferían bloques más grandes. No mencionas que la lightning network funciona como un banco, y que puede haber censura. Y un largo etc.
The quick dismissal of BSV was a bit sucky. Biased much? An honest look at it's development would've been good. I can't stand the BSV community personally, but it's hard to deny what's being done on chain.
You are probably right. Really talking about it would have made the video even longer. To me it‘s not an interesting project, so I didn‘t go into more detail here.
@@tillmusshoff Fair call I guess, but this felt more presented as an unbiased timeline.. at first, then it devolved into BTC maxi land. Big block ARE the answer.. there's no other way around it if you want to scale. Fee's alone will not sustain the chain into the future beyond block rewards. Not unless you can have millions of transactions per block... it's childs maths.
@@tillmusshoff layered protocol is not Bitcoin.. (segwit, taproot, lightning network) BTC cant even operate with phones directly.. Dont you know BITCOIN SV (BSV), is the only blockchain that can host NFT, Smart Contract, Turing Complete, videos, website, scaling, microtransaction, multiverse, chatting program, games, ETC, all that ON CHAIN on the first and the only layer.. This is wrong.. and BTC more like ponzy rightnow..
I don't think that's a solution because Bitcoiners want the ability to readily download and verify every bit of blockchain data themselves, not to trust supernodes.
@@Lzady if you feel strongly about the features of those coins, go use them. Trying to fundamentally change bitcoin just won't work, as the video shows.
@@SAL-fs1mr number will not lie. One day have 86400 second BTC have 4.6tps (86400×4.6)÷2 (1day how many second) × (BTC TPS) × (2 people open lightning network) =198720 one day how many people can join lightning network Only China population 1.4b 1400000000÷198720= 7045day 7045÷364=19 years later then only 1.4b people can use lightning network. Do this work?
@@Lzady it seems you are not considering how a single transaction can create very many lightning channels (one transaction can have very many outputs). why not also consider how sidechains and statechains can also be used to manage lightning channels?
Forks are the only method users can have say on the future of bitcoin. The fact that you dismissed bitcoin cash as a spin off or an altcoin explains why you are considering segwit fork what users want and regarding all the other attempts as an illegitimate attempt to have a say on the future of the procotol.
This is about precedents. Doing a hard fork once means more hard forks in the future. If this happens there will eventually be one with unexpected catastrophic results that destroy Bitcoin for ever.
@@juliansoto2651 I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to split a community because they don't have the same views on the future. Dis-functioning relationships will make one party's like miserable. BTC => Settlement layer, digital gold, speculative instrument BCH => p2p financial system
@@juliansoto2651 this concern may be a little more than concern trolling. But to simply address it, with the integration of avalanche this problem was addressed on Bitcoin ABC, all future upgrades can eaasily be done without meddling with the base protocol. So yes, it was nothing than concern trolling in the end.
@@hossein3494 yes, that would be a fine trade off and compromise, only that people could not accept this and tried to unjustifiably paint BCH as an "attack" and a "scam" which has hurt the project a lot. The book OP is summarizing is already super biased itself. The representation of what the BCH project was, is incredibly bad. To this day people dont even know the roadmap, while trying to judge it.
1:34 minutes in and we already have a baseless premise. So the entire thing is already built on cheeky biased fundaments? Small Blockers overemphasizing "node decentralization" on a completely techno-theoretical level and a concern trolling manner does not mean that the big blocker side valued decentralization practices and principles of censorship-resistance any less. In fact, it was early predicted that BTC will put itself into a corner and be dependent on custodians and gatekeepers in an L2 decentralization theater. While you still today can transact p2p as you could always do with Bitcoin on Big Block Bitcoin chains.
I built a 'Link in Bio' - a Linktree alternative for Bitcoiners. Check it out here: bitcoiner.bio 🧡
Thank you for compiling such a record of events.
That credit goes to the author of the book - Jonathan Bier!
Excellent and interesting recap, keep it up!
Bitcoin is great as store of value. It simply cannot scale to be a peer to peer cash system. 10min block time remains. Study Kaspa.
I have push notifications on for your channel Till. Thanks for the good work!
That‘s 🔥, thanks!
Your comparison is wrong. Large blocks are not the one that change rules easily, instead big blockers were the ones that wanted to keep the basic protocol structure unchanged, and the small blockers were the ones who proposed a protocol change which was called SegWit. User nodes are important, but with SegWit protocol upgrade, non segwit nodes became irrelevant, they can't mine without causing a chain split, because they are incompatible, if the miners were separated into 2 camps of non segwit and segwit nodes, there would be a hardfork, therefore the major lie is that SegWit was a softfork. Long term focus is also a wrong approach, both camps have long term focus, while the small blockers came up with a derivative sidechain papermoney 2.0 network ideas as a scalability solution, big blockers were proponents of onchain scalability, those are the real only bitcoin guys that follow the Bitcoin whitepaper design, which had a scalability solution from the very beginning described in the whitepaper, section 7.
Funny you reference section 7, at which Satoshi postulates 4.2mb blocksize which Segwit attained. Anyway, the basic reality is that big blocks come at the expense of decentralization, something which Satoshi was dead set against. Segwit is indeed a soft fork, so is taproot.
From what i understand based on last few months of research bigger blocks allows for scaling and consistency in payment fee and smaller blocks less caller and higher transaction fees so this video explanation i could not quite agree with but im still in research mode
@@robt3407the 4.2 block size is deceptive because Blockstream changed the way they define block size and accounted for block weight instead to make it look like the blocks are bigger but it's STILL 7 transactions per second with no increase in throughput. Learn about it and discard the propaganda!
The limit was introduced to prevent spamming of small transactions that would have created blocks more than 32 mb which wasn´t the network able to process at the time. Back then there where no ASIC miner. Today this isn´t a problem.
This was a very well put together, informational video.
Best explanation I've seen yet.
Roger Ver himself gives a better explanation in his book "Hijacking Bitcoin." The audiobook is here on UA-cam. Definitely give it a full listen. Worth every second and the story is infuriating and sad. It pisses me off to no end that BTC is a mere faint shadow of what it could've been.
awesome content dude, love it so far, keep going
wow that was awesome.
The problem here is that you have to stay consistent in your arguent.
If you say that increasing block size would make running a node too difficult for normal people, than you have to apply the same criticism to Segwit. While Segwit technically did not inxrease block size, it effectively did increase block size. Sure, Segwit stores some of the data outside the block, this data still needs to be stored.
Segwit is basically like hooking up a basket to the handlebars of your bike to carry more weight when your bike is already overloaded. But than claim the basket is carrying the extra weight, not the bike itself.
Danke. 🙏 Wieder was gelernt. Super Quelle jetzt, die man sicher mehrmals aufrufen wird/kann bis sich alles verinnerlicht hat. 👍
Nice summary
FYI, Haber is NSA.
Not a word about Blockstream? Strange...
Great video thank you!
Amazing content!
very interesting learning the history
Crazy to think all they had to do was increase to 2 MB and this all could have been avoided.
That's a naive take on what happened. People who wanted bigger blocks were no way going to be satisfied with just 2mb, they were clear about doing even bigger blocks as their ultimate goal. It's better they left Bitcoin to go make their own altcoins.
@@SAL-fs1mr It does not matter how much bigger blocks people wanted to go. raising the blocksize up to 2,4,8 mb would have been perfectly fine. It is not naive at all. It is arrogant to not realize how a perfectly fine engineering decision was undermined for a huge pivot it where bitcoin was going. One that ended up in BTC falling flat on its face in 2017. Nothing would be different for BTC if it had a capacity for 8MB. Only that millions of people could use it, instead of 5 Ln nerds
@@SAL-fs1mr Bitcoin block size could be increased with respect to saturation of network
@@SAL-fs1mrtrue
I always like to point out the inconsistencies of small blockers when it comes to free market principles. Shouldn’t the free market decide the block size every block?
There are Altcoins that do that. None of them come close in terms of market size compared to Bitcoin. So the free market decided bitcoin is good as it is with its fixed rules.
Wouldn't you say by that logic the "free market" should also dictate the 21 million coin limit?
@@SAL-fs1mr No because that's an aspect of sound money. The free market should decide where, when, and how to spend; all backed by a sound money
@@awuun1984de que dinero estás hablando? Btc no es dinero ni lo será nunca.
Well done
BCH is King🎉 btcbch chart looks amazing for BCH🎉
Great video, you just need to make a documentary 10x times longer and you go viral and hundreds of thousands would enjoy this
Clearly you were bias to BTC which is totally not the one white paper talks about and that is fine People who wants to limit to small block and make it like gold it is fine we give value in things we think is valuable anyway. But they need to change the name to SOV coin
Store of value coin not Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin is p2p electronic cash system.
Este video está bastante sesgado, por varios motivos. No mencionas la censura en los foros de todo aquel que cuestionara el tamaño del bloque. No mencionas los mensajes de shatoshi diciendo que el tamaño del bloque a 1 mega era algo temporal para hacer ataques de spam, pero que se tendría que adaptar si había cada vez más adopción. No mencionas que btc core básicamente esta controlado por blockstream, una empresa con financiación de empresas como AXA o Mastercard. No mencionas que vitalik apoyaba a bitcoin cash, y que su intención inicial era desarrollar ethereum sobre bitcoin. No mencionas los ataques a los mineros que preferían bloques más grandes. No mencionas que la lightning network funciona como un banco, y que puede haber censura. Y un largo etc.
Todo lo que comentas, es todo lo que está bien :)
The quick dismissal of BSV was a bit sucky. Biased much? An honest look at it's development would've been good. I can't stand the BSV community personally, but it's hard to deny what's being done on chain.
You are probably right. Really talking about it would have made the video even longer. To me it‘s not an interesting project, so I didn‘t go into more detail here.
@@tillmusshoff Fair call I guess, but this felt more presented as an unbiased timeline.. at first, then it devolved into BTC maxi land. Big block ARE the answer.. there's no other way around it if you want to scale. Fee's alone will not sustain the chain into the future beyond block rewards. Not unless you can have millions of transactions per block... it's childs maths.
I disagree with that. A layered protocol is the better answer.
@@tillmusshoff Off chain solutions, controlled by entities... sure, love a bit of centralization.
@@tillmusshoff layered protocol is not Bitcoin.. (segwit, taproot, lightning network)
BTC cant even operate with phones directly..
Dont you know BITCOIN SV (BSV), is the only blockchain that can host NFT, Smart Contract, Turing Complete, videos, website, scaling, microtransaction, multiverse, chatting program, games, ETC, all that ON CHAIN on the first and the only layer..
This is wrong.. and BTC more like ponzy rightnow..
Then the best Bitcoin is Bitcoin SV?
Bitcoin is the best Bitcoin
But you can’t buy coffee with it so it’s not, try using bitcoin cash. Stop confusing people. You can’t even send $1 worth of bitcoin to someone else
@@Unheard_tillnow that's why I say bitcoin sv is good,microtransactions can be sent.I also sent 10 cents on bsv
@@Unheard_tillnow Sure you can do it right now as the video mentioned via Lightning Network. But the adoption for this solutions needs to grow.
"Small blocks are more Scientific."
1 GB HDD storage cost - 0.02$
1 GB bandwidth cost - 0.006$
1 tx fee on BTC network - ~1$
Well a FINAL settlement transaction on a GLOBAL DECENTRALIZED currency is, in my opinion, more valuable than the other two.
tell me that you didn't understand the video without telling me you didn't understand the video...
Why are more txs happening on BTC than other forks? Even BCH with it's 32 mb empty blocks.
BSV-Building Significant Value wins 🏆
Time for Big Blocks ? Ordinals and memes testing the BTC network... will BTC blocks increase or is it time to call the eventual winner as BSV 😎
Larger blockchains It's not a problem in the future the transaction history grow to big can use like Filecoin to save the transaction history
I don't think that's a solution because Bitcoiners want the ability to readily download and verify every bit of blockchain data themselves, not to trust supernodes.
Can do like Mina coin the transaction history use like filecoin to save
@@Lzady if you feel strongly about the features of those coins, go use them. Trying to fundamentally change bitcoin just won't work, as the video shows.
@@SAL-fs1mr number will not lie. One day have 86400 second
BTC have 4.6tps (86400×4.6)÷2
(1day how many second) × (BTC TPS) × (2 people open lightning network)
=198720 one day how many people can join lightning network
Only China population 1.4b
1400000000÷198720= 7045day
7045÷364=19 years later then only 1.4b people can use lightning network. Do this work?
@@Lzady it seems you are not considering how a single transaction can create very many lightning channels (one transaction can have very many outputs). why not also consider how sidechains and statechains can also be used to manage lightning channels?
Where is Adam back & theymos in all of that ?
On the small blocker side ofc! Its hard to put everything in, the video got much longer than I planned already.
@@tillmusshoff Thanks for the effort & time much appreciated
he was busy cancelling people in online forums
Forks are the only method users can have say on the future of bitcoin. The fact that you dismissed bitcoin cash as a spin off or an altcoin explains why you are considering segwit fork what users want and regarding all the other attempts as an illegitimate attempt to have a say on the future of the procotol.
This is about precedents. Doing a hard fork once means more hard forks in the future. If this happens there will eventually be one with unexpected catastrophic results that destroy Bitcoin for ever.
@@juliansoto2651 I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to split a community because they don't have the same views on the future. Dis-functioning relationships will make one party's like miserable.
BTC => Settlement layer, digital gold, speculative instrument
BCH => p2p financial system
@@juliansoto2651 this concern may be a little more than concern trolling. But to simply address it, with the integration of avalanche this problem was addressed on Bitcoin ABC, all future upgrades can eaasily be done without meddling with the base protocol. So yes, it was nothing than concern trolling in the end.
@@hossein3494 yes, that would be a fine trade off and compromise, only that people could not accept this and tried to unjustifiably paint BCH as an "attack" and a "scam" which has hurt the project a lot. The book OP is summarizing is already super biased itself. The representation of what the BCH project was, is incredibly bad. To this day people dont even know the roadmap, while trying to judge it.
@@hossein3494People will just use L2 on BTC - Bitcoin Cash is obsolete because money is a SoV before MoE.
1:34 minutes in and we already have a baseless premise. So the entire thing is already built on cheeky biased fundaments? Small Blockers overemphasizing "node decentralization" on a completely techno-theoretical level and a concern trolling manner does not mean that the big blocker side valued decentralization practices and principles of censorship-resistance any less. In fact, it was early predicted that BTC will put itself into a corner and be dependent on custodians and gatekeepers in an L2 decentralization theater. While you still today can transact p2p as you could always do with Bitcoin on Big Block Bitcoin chains.
Bitcoin BTC has legal issues that we will see play out soon. Is that why you didn't want to talk about the only real Bitcoin BSV?
BSV is an altcoin headed by a conman named Craig Wright.
Thank you for bringin on the good well known propaganda.
ua-cam.com/video/hXUOSCGfuJA/v-deo.html
BTC is a scam.