I am not the only one totally annoyed by how bitcoin behaves in an effort to keep the dominant position and be the 'one coin for all' and with this hurts the alt-industry. I think at this point it becomes inevitable to start using more than one chain and stop looking at btc as the only coin worth bothering with.
I see, so rather than doubling the size of the bitcoin chain you'd rather have two chains half the size? How is that a win?
It IS in fact a win - coins are easy to convert in many different ways within splitseconds. How is it a loose? From an economic standpoint it's not a loose. Say the coffeeshop accepts 'Bitcoin' but i do use xyz-coin. The conversion is a mere formal act. I can pay the coffeeshop in xyz-coin and the shopowner gets the coin he wants (gavincoin or whatever). Crypto is easy enough to convert for this to have no economic impact. All it takes is an exchange-app, and i think it could already be developed or even exist already (would need to check)
With multiple smaller chains the enduser doesn't loose souvereignity to too high hardware requirements.
You could in fact even merge mine them.
The individual user would not be required to store Terrabytes of data and have extreme bandwidth like he would be with Gavincoin.
How is requiring everyone to potentially store terrabytes a win?
---
This scenario is what will happen most likely anyway once running Gavincoin becomes unaffordable for the enduser.
you really dont get it do you?
even if we ignore the legion of premined scamcoins, we still have the following issue:
Suppose we use 4 different altcoins
Acoin has a 10 GB blockchain in this example
Bcoin has a 5 GB blockchain
Ccoin has a 20 GB blockchain
Dcoin has a 15 GB blockchain
now how exactly is that better than having 1 blockchain of 10+5+20+15=50 GB?
If you are going to store them all anyway, it doesnt matter if you have 1 blockchain of 50 GB or many smaller ones adding up to 50.
In fact, having multiple blockchains means you have a lot of extra redundant information and applications running, it's less convenient, less secure, etc. It only brings more problems and it doesnt solve anything.
Why am i even explaining this....
How do premined scamcoins even matter? They don't.
Let's go out in the future 5 years from now:
Gavincoin: 1.5 terrabyte storage requirements
Mpcoin: 70GB
Acoin: 10gb
Bcoin: 20gb
Ccoin: 5gb
Dcoin: 1gb
you don't store them all - especially not gavincoin. You store two or three maximum. Those that are most according to your usecase of crypto.
So your assumption everyone would store all chains is wrong of course. Different people use different coins for different purposes and will use different chains according to their preferences.
a,b,c,d,e coin can still be merged mined with the strongest network (which one that will be remains to be seen) - so a,b,c,d coin are almost as secure as the network they merge mine against.
Almost nobody will use a coin that requires such insane hardware as Gavincoin will.
Once this is understood there's going to be a lot developement towards efficency - Gavincoin is a proposal for a waste of systemrecources and therefore it won't be able to compete with more efficient coins in the long run.
If in any case i would be required to use Gavincoin i can still convert my a,b,c,d,e coin in splitseconds to it.