BSV

HSuke

Would work with BSV / Craig Wright too

MaximalMining

Rookie numbers. BSV Terranode incoming.

Economy_Document_820

It’s not good to have a precedent of increased block size. Let’s say we increased it not much. Say we 2x’ed. It means hard-fork. Now we have two not-so-much different bitcoin network. AND we have a precedent of increased blocksize. That’s a problem. In can be exploited to create further networks and breed confusion. It’s potential attack vector. If we increase substantially, we could sacrifice centralization. And create next BSV. Looking for a “sweet spot” sounds very unlikely and again, what would be the “rule” for further increases of block sizes. Or every next time it’s gonna be huge discussion with hardfork and doubling my moneys?) I vote against any blocksize increase with my nodes

grndslm

Makes zero sense.  Increasing blocksize by 100x would lead to a BSV type situation where each full node needs a 20 TB drive to make it into the end of this year, meaning that only ~10 nodes exist over the entire globe. 4 MB every 10 min is enough for a global settlement layer.  Outer layers (such as LN and others) can handle more Txs... also thru decentralized means.  Every Tx in the world cannot fit into *one* decentralized PoW system.  But with multiple layers of decentralized systems... yes, all Txs can be incorporated into such a design. When everybody in Africa has a phone with 500 TB of storage (20 years away?).... perhaps we could double the blocksize then??  But would we really need to???

Halo22B

All of the TXs are recorded on the blockchain forever. Only you would have sent BTC to this address on purpose. Sure someone else could have sent BTC there but only by accident. You've already demonstrated you misremembered in one instance, very probable you have misremembered other instances. Logically you created the paper address with X amount if BTC. You then (correctly) wrote that valuable information down. Later you made other transfers to that address but recorded them how, where, did you even bother? As for forks, you need to create the identical wallet on both BCH and BSV chains,. You will then see the same amount of "coin" for each of these forks. I would suggest you exchange (sell) them for real BTC, but you do you. Congrats and good luck.

sweetsimplesauce

BSV is Craig Wright's centralized shitcoin that has less than 20 nodes, almost no hashrate and zero adoption. Go browse r/bsv and https://craigwright.online/ for a bit to learn more.

BUY___BITCOIN

What is BSV? Sounds like a very shitcoin

vattenj

That is better than Kraken, 3 years still waiting in my case. I have some replay-attacked BSV sending to MY OWN address in Kraken, because they delisted BSV, they have no means to get it back, although keep promising

fatebound

Bitcoin maxis are what made bitcoin what it is today. Don't see how you can be salty about it unless you are/were are BCH/BSV shill

Sharlach

Who are you even talking about, Roger Ver? Craig Wright went on to BSV and has nothing to do with BCH.

16x98

Scientology have their own token named BSV

Themistokles42

Monero: no, adaptive block size can be exploited to get same issues as BSV (orphan blocks) Bcash: no, it's a bandaid, if you use their solution for actual relevant scale you get forks like what happened to BSV Litecoin: you talking about layer 2 here? Or just that fees are low? Because they're only low because it isn't used as much as BTC Nano: got DDOSed so many times, every time they say it's fixed and then it happens again Kaspa: yes.

donmulatito

I do not understand what you are saying at all, but definitely sounds like the BSV crowd would be a great fit for you ☺️

No_Investigator3369

So I don't know exactly how to answer that besides starting to put numbers behind the $$$ side of it. But value is something different. Did any of us value Zelle or paypal and the ability to use Ebay when we were just using E-mail back in 1996? According to Statista, global revenues from internet services and advertising are expected to increase from $828 billion in 2023 to $1.05 trillion in 2027. In 2023, global retail e-commerce sales reached an estimated $5.8 trillion, and projections indicate a 39% growth over the coming years, with expectations to surpass $8 trillion by 2027. Personally, I think we'll start to see the marriage of traditional protocols like TCP/IP with blockchain technology. TCP/IP is not going anywhere but you are starting to see the infancy of this as there are a few whitepapers people have put together around these ideas with unfortunately BSV. It's only a matter of time before these ideas are re-introduced using the strongest blockchain protocol. To me, integrating blockchains with TCP/IP allows communications to have financial "skin in the game". At the moment, there's nothing stopping me from sending a shit ton of traffic to your routers to clog up https ports on your web server. And lets say my motive is not a DOS and to clog up your Web facing precense but to slip through a back door of the services you are using on your website. Again.....no cost to me to attempt to send a bunch of "if/then" statements to your "if/then defense box" to attempt to use logic to determine if my actions are nefarious. BSV / TCP/IP paper mentioned. https://www.bsvblockchain.org/news/ipv6-unlocks-the-true-power-of-the-bsv-blockchain Again....not an endorsement at all of BSV just an example of whats possible with blockchains and the protocols that run the internet today.

Steve_at_Reddit

I was goimg to say Bitcoin SV, but thought too many here would wonder wtf is BSV?! Craig Wright = Bitcoin Satoshi Violator

uncapchad

BSV!

Zestyclose_Mine_5618

That's not the "real" reason, it's a contributing reason that works in tandem to the reasons I listed above. Look at BSV for example. It can handle many more transactions but nobody gives a fuck about it or can even run a node to actually use it. If Bitcoin could have unlimited throughput it still wouldn't change the fact that fiat and cryptos cost near zero to create and will find a market cap above 0 bitcoin every single time. Money is very cheap to make, good money is very difficult.

littlecabinone

Oh they mean the BSV halving?

Frogolocalypse

Yeah, that was never going to happen once they lost all of their talent to BSV.

BradleyRettler

Hash rate doesn’t drop to maintain anything. The difficulty adjusts to maintain blocks every 10 minutes on average. And you’re right in your edit; the difficulty adjusts every two weeks. Adjusting more often (like BSV does) can lead to manipulation and 51% attacks.

KindlyPlatypus1717

BSV under Nchain is already CAPABLE of 1,000,000 TPS since February

KindlyPlatypus1717

BSV

DeviljhoFood

Longest chain wins. BSV had its chance.

Alfador8

As soon as the fork occurred it was immediately obvious which coin market participants and the market favored. Ver could have been honest and marketed his fork as a fork but persisted in trying to label it 'the real bitcoin', just like Craig Wright with BSV, because it benefited them personally. Scammers, the lot of them.

hungryforitalianfood

You have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re making shit up as you go. You have no skin in the game, and you have no prospects. No one cares about your predictions, because you have less than nothing to back them up, and you have no money at stake. Thinking BTC peaked at 70k **before the fucking halving** is not smart. Find another sub to make proclamations in, because you don’t know enough about crypto. Your last post was asking if you can call the police if Coinbase won’t let you withdraw your BSV. Which is perfect, because no one with an IQ over 80 would hold BSV.

gr8ful4

Fees are even lower in BCH and in the future. LTC has a limited blocksize so works as BTC before hitting the blocksize limit. BCH has a current limit of x4 compared to LTC and starting from next month a dynamic blocksize that will grow with demand without being spammable like BSV. BCH has CashFusion (also implemented in some mobile wallets). It has AnyHedge, one if not the best on-chain hedging tool in the whole crypto space. It has fought at least three battles (BTC, BSV and XEC) and therefore has a hardened community of OGs.

Realistic_Fee_00001

What's a reference client? And why is a client from 2013 important? However you answer this question you will end up at the conclusion that it is people who put value on this specific feature. But it is also people that put more value into the p2p cash feature or the scaling feature. Even Satoshi suggested a hardfork to for increase the blocksize limit. Did you know that Bitcoin started out with 32MB blocks? Limiting the blocksize is tightening the consensus rules aka a SF. Increasing the blocksize limit is a widening of the rules aka a HF. I wonder why the ones that sold you L2 scaling also were the biggest cultists about not to HF. >Of course. Anyone can choose to run a bitcoin cash node, just like they may run a litecoin node, or an ethereum node, or an avalanche node. Not the same and you know it. >But if I run the latest bitcoin node, I can make payments to people running bitcoin software from 2013, and their node software will accept it. That's a circular argument if you run BTC you can make payments to BTC. But only so many people because the throughput is severely limited. It's also again a non-argument, because people running a BCH client can also transact to and from addresses/coins before 2017. Besides there are no old nodes on the network. At least non that count, because Blockstream met with miners before the fork an made sure they only run their segwit node. Know why? If miners would run pre segwit nodes, all the "everyone can spend" segwit hack coins would become spendable and the network would split. Yes, you read that right. No, in this contentious fork there are no good and bad guys. There are only people with interests. >Just no... a lot of alt coins do this where they run two nodes next to each other who rapidly send transactions to each other, and act like this is "proof" that the same throughput could be achieved in the real world between thousands of nodes distributed around the world. Another example is Solana, the centralized nodes in well connected server farms can send tens of thousands of transactions between each other, but actual end user transactions only scale to a few hundred per second before the network maxes out. Again another non-argument. Just because other chains (almost all of them PoS by the way with BSV as exception) do it that way doesn't mean BCH didn't do it right. The whole world "failed" at mobile phones until apple and their Iphone came along.

Spacesider

Absolutely, and your post reminds me of the NANO community. Between the years of 2018-2020 they were here aggressively shilling it in threads that had *nothing* to do with them. For example ... one thread was about the hash rates of BCH and BSV, and there were people in that thread being like "Well who cares about that, have you guys actually heard about this coin called NANO which has no hash rate?" Everytime I saw it brought up in a thread that had nothing to do with them I disliked them more and more. But, I ended up losing all respect for the project and the community when there was a thread about people who were living in extreme poverty in the poorest countries in the world, and one of the NANO community managers came along and was saying how these people should get a NANO wallet on their phones and put their money into NANO, so they can preserve their purchasing power. Really man? You're going to shill your bags off the back of these people? They are worried about surviving and if they will be eating any food that day or that week, and you want them to fill your bags? Give me a break.

divinesleeper

The real answer is that big blocks cannot be used to truly scale because if you overdo it you get the orphan block latency problems Like BSV but if you just do it slightly like BCH there is no significant scaling so it's not a solution. Satoshi also changed his mind when people pointed this out and switched to ambivalent there is a coin that has solved to orphan block problem recently btw.

anonymouscitizen2

1mb blocks are not obsolete, with segwit there was an weight increase to 4mb and “small block” bitcoin is currently the most popular crypto for payments and saving (excl. stables) by far. Small block Bitcoin is doing phenomenally well, “large block” (which still couldn’t come close to global scale) is dead in a ditch. BSV, BCH, and XEC are all <1% of Bitcoin COMBINED. You can choose to use BCH, BSV or whatever you want, stop trying to force others. Your ideas are so bad they have destroyed 99% of everyones value who believed them, 3x in a row. Bitcoin was meant to be saved, thats why it has a hard cap and is hard to produce. Thats why satoshi compares it to gold. You need to simply need to face reality. Crypto as cash is not popular, the market does not want it. A crypto savings vehicle is 10000000x more popular and people want it. Its that simple. Use BCH if you want and lose more value, just stop trying to sabotage the Bitcoin that is actually useful and popular and make it another useless -99% fork.

SnooCalculations1742

Jup. When he appeared on TV as "CEO of Bitcoin Cash", it lost all credibility. Bch was an attack on btc, to transfer power from the original camp, towards a group led by Ver who then would be able to stake out a path for Bitcoin going forwards. Anothet attempt was made by Wright, who created BSV. Wright has been proven a liar and a fraud many times. The people chose to stick to the original chain, to keep it decentralised. Larger block sizes leads to more centralisation (one large reason why Ethereum hasn't done it yet). Bitcoin doesn't need a CEO. We are Bitcoin.

robyer

Sure, it CAN be. But for example Ethereum has quantum security at least on roadmap, while I don't think Bitcoin even has any roadmap or plans regarding this. Additionally it would require HARD fork, unless you want to keep the old addresses vulnerable and ready forever for attacker to get the coins. And you definitely need community to agree with the proposed implementation, you can't force it on them - it's likely that something similar to the "block-size wars" and multiple forks (BCH, BSV...) will happen again with different ways to implement and handle the quantum security.

Own_Sky9933

These type of old wallets. I think people forget they have all the forks too. BCash, BSV, BGold etc.

cpt_charisma

Forbes is a pay-to-publish tabloid. Besides, it's not true. If you try to change the rules of Bitcoin against the wishes of everyone who uses it, you just end up on a new fork that no one is using (e.g. Craig Wright's BSV.) To pull it off, miners would need to not only all change their own software, but also convince everyone else running a node or wallet to change their software. One person may have an incentive to do this if they can get lots of the new coins, but it will devalue all bitcoin. This means that the majority have a very strong incentive to not accept a change in supply. If you don't believe me, search for 'block size wars.' We have already resisted an unwanted change that the miners *and* developers tried to force on the network.

thegreatboy

BSV will not like this

hitma-n

And what about BSV? When does that halve?

longlostkingdoms

Useless fork of the most secure and decentralized currency out there. Roger’s fall from grace years ago and his continuation to support this ghost chain that only causes confusion for plebs thinking it’s BTC is beyond me. It is beyond its end of having any relevance, has obviously failed to capture the market that it meant to, and only extracts value from development on bitcoin. Be gone, much like with BSV.

bitcoincashautist

>irrelevant fork It had its bottom of relevance during 2019-2020, but with recent upgrades it's gaining more relevance because it has more to offer than just BTC but with bigger blocks: L1 DeFi & native tokens baked into consensus. We're growing our own network effect as "BitcoinCash", and after 7 years we accumulated some Lindy, too. >BCH has less than 1% of the hashrate of BTC - I guess even some bigger miners could attack BCH at this point, you don't even have to argue with pools here. Just because it's 1% of BTC doesn't mean the sha256d miners are offering it to sale to whomever asks, the hash is too busy mining what pays. If you're a wannabe attacker, what's easier: to rent out ASICs for sha256d, or to rent out GPU cluster or botnet to attack w/e other-algo coin - even if it's the only coin with the algo. I feel safer buying security from the specialists: the sha256d mining industry, and survival of all chains with their algo is in their interest, even if we only bring them 1% of their combined revenue. Why would you attack your paying regular customer? Also, if an attacker can rent hash for an attack, then a defender can rent hash for a defense too, making the cost of attack unknowable. In BCH-BSV and BCH-XEC forks, whales have shown their work behind the scenes when hash allocation was not matching the optimal distribution just based on block reward. Someone paid for the hash, out of band. Ultimately, all networks are secured by their economies, and with USD 12B mcap, BCH is not a small economy on an absolute scale, even though it is relatively small compared to BTC. >it's totally natural that two forks of the BTC don't find blocks at the same rate as both see different growths in hashrate, even if they run identical code The difference would've been much less if the EDAA was not as bad as it was. I did a plot [here](https://bitcoincashresearch.org/uploads/default/original/2X/5/5148db265cf6095e7555b1a4b8ce48bc70b29029.png), notice the anomaly?

murray_paul

He was trying to convince the court to force the Bitcoin developers to add a mechanism to move coins by court order. So if he could prove to the satisfaction of the court he had owned particular coins but had lost the keys, he could obtain a court order to have them transferred back to him, without a signed transaction. BSV implemented this mechanism (OP_COURT). If he had won that case, and at the same time proved that he was Satoshi, he could then demand that the Satoshi coins be transferred to him.

borg_6s

BSV maybe?

Jabanger

BCH like BSV is the wish.com version of Bitcoin. Just a shitty copy

Ilovekittens345

It is, but Calvin Ayre (the owner of coingeek) still holds BSV while Roger Ver (the owner of Bitcoin.com) lost all his BCH.

btc_clueless

I hope at least he BSV shills will shut up forever now that Craig Wright lost in court.

Fajarsis

Who is recommending to buy any of those? I did put any recommendation even to buy BTC! The discussion is on tech, not on price.. or commercial aspect. BSV for example, is lead by some mental who sued left and right those who do not recognize him as the real Satoshi Nakamoto.

YogurtCloset3335

> You've just loudly announced you have no idea what you are talking about. Control over the codebase is control over everything. So unfortunately I fear it's you who is the idiot. > and if I control what they run, it becomes irrelevant You've just loudly announced you have no idea what you are talking about. Control over the codebase is control over everything. How you control what I run on a decentralized network? Devs can write whatever code they want, if nobody agrees with their changes in consensus, nobody runs that code, and the network is unchanged. Did the Bitcoin Gold devs change Bitcoin? If you know crypto history you know that Segwit fork took over a year to gain adoption. And BCH has forks that nobody uses like BSV. "Control over code" mean *precisely nothing* if devs have no credibility or try to do something shady.

Fajarsis

There are many PoW projects out there, BTC, LTC, BCH, BSV (ehm..) among others.. And recently there's also KAS with promising technology for BTC's scalability issues, which drove the 'economic' issue of BTC and ETH (high transaction fees) There's also NEXA which fall in between BTC and ETH, scalable PoW with smart contract and tokenization capability. All of those newer projects need time and mass adoption to prove their eligibility for 'store of value'.

Wise-Application-144

I followed the trial quite closely and I'm astonished by the extent to which he aided the prosecution. He claimed he couldn't submit hard evidence he was Satoshi, but the true test was whether he knew the code. Ok. ...the prosecution quite predictably asked questions about the code and he couldn't answer them. He failed to be able to explain basic Computer Science terms and how the code works. The prosecution also looked at some of Wright's BSV code and found rookie errors and bugs that Satoshi didn't make in the original code. &#x200B; Honestly my main takeaway from the trial is that Wright literally can't think straight. He sets himself up for obvious questions and then seems blindsided by them. He submits just clearly fake evidence and is then stunned that he's caught. He even chose expert witnesses that testified *against* him. There appears to be a very basic lack of linear, logical thinking.

MichaelAischmann

I used to play on a website called blockchain dot poker. It offered NL Texas Holdem games in BTC, BCH, BSV & ECASH and also regularly held quite sizable free rolls. Unfortunately the website has closed a good year ago (withdrawals are still possible if you have funds there). I have not found an adequate alternative since & therefore I am very interested in what the community will suggest. !RemindMe in 2 days

Own_Sky9933

Some people also sold all their BTC to buy BTrash, BGold, BSV. Imagine being one of those people.

BeginningBeautiful69

Bitcoin Satoshi Vision or BSV (aka shitcoin hard fork after the blocksize wars) started to dust with 500-odd sats as a kind of advertisement for their fork years ago.

psiconautasmart

That is BSV my smart friend.

Soy7ent

I think even Satoshi wrote that I order to be used by everyone it needs to scale differently. Just don't fall for the BSV clowns.

KindlyPlatypus1717

BSV... hold 1. No risk, all to gain (IF it were to flip BTC... and I think k that chance is more than 0.01% so its worthwhile to put 1 egg in that basket... again, in MY opinion)! Ready for the haters

Any_Reputation849

that is a different coin altogether... you are talking about BSV

Due-Professional6824

According to recent data from Bitpay, LTC is the #1 used chain for actual P2P payments. BCH is a little suspect ever since Craig Wright got into a dispute with Roger Ver and forked the BCH chain to BSV. It's kind of a shitshow blockchain.

Grammar_Natsee_

BCH and BSV are PoW memecoins.

CointestMod

#Bitcoin Cash Con-Arguments Below is a Bitcoin Cash con-argument written by Blendzi0r. > # What is Bitcoin Cash (BCH)? > > Bitcoin Cash is a [hard fork](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp) of Bitcoin. It was launched in 2017. [It has 32MB blocks instead of Bitcoin’s 1MB](https://www.coindesk.com/learn/2015/08/21/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-debate-and-why-does-it-matter/), so it can handle many more transactions per second (TPS). And that’s the main difference between BTC and BCH, as its goal was to tackle [Bitcoin’s scalability problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem) without the second layer solutions. > > # What are the cons of BCH? > > **IT’S CENTRALIZED** > > BCH “inherited” BTC’s supply distribution from July 2017 when it was launched but the supply held by large addresses [has become more concentrated over time](https://coinmetrics.substack.com/p/coin-metrics-state-of-the-network-2d3) (while BTC is even more decentralized today). > > In 2019, [just two mining pools were able to perform a 51% attack](https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/). And although it was done for a good cause – to stop an unknown miner from exploiting a bug – it can serve as a prove that BCH was centralized already back then. > > &#x200B; > > **THE NARRATIVE IS ON BITCOIN’S SIDE** > > The value of Bitcoin has gone up more than 2,000% since July 2017 while BCH has stayed below its price from July 2017 most of the time, not to mention its [ATH price of $4,355](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/) (it's 86% down from ATH as of 31.10.2021). > > Also liquidity and real-world usability of Bitcoin Cash [is nowhere near that of Bitcoin](https://www.investopedia.com/tech/bitcoin-vs-bitcoin-cash-whats-difference/#citation-4). It is clear that the great majority of investors chose Bitcoin after the 2017 hard fork and BCH is seen as an inferior copy. > > &#x200B; > > **IT HAD ITS OWN HARD FORKS** > > People cringe at Internet Computer’s name, but for me, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) takes the cake. It’s a hard fork of Bitcoin Cash that took place in late 2018. It has even larger blocks than BCH – [2GB](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-record-2-gigabyte-block-130000498.html). > > In 2020, there was another hard fork that produced two new chains- Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin Node. This shows that Bitcoin Cash has failed not only against Bitcoin, but had splits among its own community, further hurting its credibility. > > &#x200B; > > **IT'S SCALABILITY COMES AT A COST** > > Bigger blocks have certain [disadvantages](https://www.sfox.com/blog/is-bigger-better-how-to-evaluate-bitcoin-cash-based-on-block-size/). Running nodes when the blocks are big requires more resources. Also, the commissions from transaction fees are lower, which makes mining the coin less appealing. This might result in nodes being manageable only by big, private companies, making BCH even more centralized. > > &#x200B; > > **ITS MAIN ADVANTAGE ISN’T UTILIZED…** > > Although BCH’s blocks can handle up to 32MB of data, [they have not reached even 2MB since they were introduced in 2018](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc-bch.html#3y). What's more, their average size is currently much lower than that of Bitcoin’s blocks. > > Taking into consideration the point above about the disadvantages of bigger blocks, it makes you wonder why BCH would push for such big blocks when most of the time they don't even use 3% of their capacity. > > &#x200B; > > **… AND EVEN IF IT WAS, THERE'S LIGHTNING NETWORK** > > [SegWit](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/segwit-segregated-witness.asp) allows second layer solutions to be implemented on Bitcoin. One of those solutions is Lightning Network which has become very popular recently after being [adopted by El Salvador](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/lightning-network-bitcoin-usage-adoption-el-salvador) and [Twitter](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/118450/twitter-rolls-out-bitcoin-tipping-for-ios-users-via-lightning-looks-to-nfts-for-the-future). > > Lightning Network effectively eliminates the main advantage of Bitcoin Cash by allowing faster and cheaper transactions with bitcoins. Even if BCH fully utilized its 32MB blocks, it wouldn't be able to compete with Lightening Network. > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > **SUMMARY** > > Bitcoin Cash is a much worse store of value than Bitcoin and now it is also losing the electronic cash narrative, since the growing adoption of [Lightning Network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network) makes Bitcoin a much cheaper and faster payment option. ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Bitcoin_Cash) to find submissions for other topics.

AerieNo5873

He disappeared then shows up saying he destroyed his keys. Then he says he left it in someone's custody. Then he says he was hacked. Then says he cannot access it because BSV refuses to changes the codes. He is just a mentally ill scammer. 

AerieNo5873

Yes, he now says he was hacked. So he threatens to sue BSV to change the codes. How can you access your coins if you were hacked? 

AerieNo5873

He then said he was hacked. And he asked BSV to change the code so he can access it. If he was hacked, how can he access his bitcoin? His stories are all over the place.

AerieNo5873

Craig the fraud said he was hacked and BSV is holding his hacked bitcoin hostage. Tell me. Does that sound like Satoshi or does Craig sound like a dumb piece of shit? I say he clearly sound like a dumb motherfucker to me.

virtual_black_whale

The point of my argument must have went over your head. I'm pointing out BSV made stupid choices and that it makes whatever claim of decentralization they still parade even more laughable then it already was. Lighter chain = better.

moonst1

True. BSV is not even a funny scam.

DangerHighVoltage111

BitcoinCash went from 1 to 8 to 32MB. With the next update it will implement Adaptive Blocksize Limit similar to what Monero has but not quite the same. The only ones who YOLOed their blocksize where BSV 😂😂

DangerHighVoltage111

What you are missing is that the small blocker had the bigger community and the shit the flung stuck as urban legends. The point with big blocks is you need sane engineers and devs. And you need to make difficult decisions over time. This doesn't lend itself to easy dogmatic talking points that everyone can understand. If you want to see a caricature of big blocks, look at BSV no scaling efficiency, no improvements, just open the floodgates and fill her up for marketing. In the end nobody had economic incentives to do anything on that chain apart from the grifters.

Lunar_Horticulture

Don't sully Bitconnect in with BSV, the memes that came our from that were on another level. bitCOOOOONNNEECCTTTTT!!!!

aaaanoon

BSV sub is great. 90% of posts are from one account

RandomNordicGuy

It has been for some time. It's just a scam money grab rip off of Bitcoin cash. The big blockers had their fork, that side of the debate was settled, everyone knew BSV was just a cash grab. Like I'm perfectly fine with the Bitcoin cash argument. It's just for there to be any credibility with the old low fee transaction Bitcoin argument, it has to stop there. Any forks just call into jeopardy what the intent of the entire plan was

01technowichi

Hey, it did do one thing. A lot of people forget, the blockwars was a legitimate ideological divide that *also* had nefarious parties trying to take advantage. People think one side or the other was "just evil" when in fact both sides had legitimate arguments and people who honestly believed it was best for bitcoin. Interestingly, *most* of the nefarious parties who aligned with the big blockers later forked from BCH to make BSV. Now that BSV is dead, BCH has a lot less of the rotten eggs and a lot more passion for the tech. Most people wont consider BCH with a 39.5' pole, but it was only after Craig Wright and his ilk forked off that it started making major technological strides, like it's smart chain and other interesting work. So BSV did a good job of cleaning out some of the swamp, so to speak. Not that Wright intended it that way, lol...

moonst1

BSV is in the same league as Safemoon, Onecoin, Bitconnect,...

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Bitcoin SV (BSV) faces an uncertain future following a UK High Court ruling that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. This verdict challenges the core rationale and founding narrative of BSV, which Wright created in 2018 to fulfill Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin. The BSV community is in crisis, with some members calling for the project to be rebranded and distanced from Wright. On-chain data shows plummeting transaction counts and user abandonment, although some BSV proponents remain supportive. Wright is considering an appeal, but the court's decision has significantly impacted BSV's credibility and market performance. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

hungryforitalianfood

BCH is in the same league as BSV, HEX, and Safemoon.

WoodenInformation730

But BSV also isn't a good argument because its average block size is several hundred MB. It obviously has to be limited and grow with organic adoption to not allow for any spammer to just put anything on-chain. The adaptive block size in Monero and soon Bitcoin Cash is more reasonable than unlimited block space that makes it impossible to run a node or severly limited block space that prevents people from using it altogether.

TamingOfTheChoon

My friend… look into the bitcoin fork wars… you are like 7 years late to this conversation. And your point is incorrect. Go buy some BitcoinCash or BSV if you believe in that vision.

Silver-Rub-5059

I think they’re going with BSV instead

Ok__Enthusiasm

BSV is a caricature of a chain initiated by a fraudster. The goal is control, not scaling. If you use that as argument you kick yourself out of the discussion.

DangerHighVoltage111

There are a lot of urban legends spread around the fork. Neither of these 3 played a key role in the fork they all joined later afaik. Freetader and Amaury made the minimal viable fork that later became BCH. Faketoshi tried to further his scam and got his ass kicked by the BCH community and the help of Ver (I think he provided a big amount of the BCH mining power at the time of the BSV fork)

retrorays

I thought they did the dig but only came back with BSV or something. Is that incorrect?

sgtslaughterTV

It's my sincere opinion that anyone running a youtube channel that promotes BSV besides Coingeek (owned by the billionaire backing craig wright / BSV ), is a paid shill. Thread for reference a couple months ago: https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1ak57qe/there_are_a_lot_of_people_on_youtube_who_bought/

TechTuna1200

The thing is that they are not only delusional in terms of BSV. But in all aspects of their lives. In the danish bitcoin facebook group there was a guy who posted BCH/BSV everyday the last 8 years. When looking into his facebook profile, he was a propper tinfoil hat guy with a lot of conspiracy theories.

SaneLad

lol BSV. It was a dead chain from day 0. Who unironically puts their money into this grift?

9500

Check BCH with derivation paths for both BTC and BCH. BCH now has the new derivation path, but in the early days, because it forked from BTC, it used the same derivation path as Bitcoin BTC. If you find BCH there, you might have BSV and eCash (ABC) coins from later forks.

jamesblacklock

I definitely lean towards thinking that significantly larger block size is the right approach. But to be fair, it still remains largely untested. BCH, despite its larger block size limit, seems much lower activity than BTC and therefore the chain size overall is significantly *smaller* than BTC. BSV has huge block sizes, but the *vast majority* of the data in those blocks is basically "free data storage." The real computational cost comes when large blocks are full of small, dense transactions and the node has to validate tens or hundreds of thousands of signatures per block. You *will* see smaller nodes struggle to validate everything within the 10 minute time frame at this scale. I want to see the result of this test. But it really hasn't happened yet.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; On November 10, 2022, the Bitcoin SV (BSV) Association released a new hardfork client, BSV 1.0.13. The upgrade may allow anyone cooperating with miners or the administrator of a centrally controlled “whitelist” to confiscate any BSV coins from any user at any time. Normal transaction validation rules are bypassed for a new special type of transaction called “ConfiscationTx”. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

virtual_black_whale

Nope. The perfect example is BSV who chose to make block size bigger because that's the lazy naive way to scale. BSV weighs 7 TB, Bitcoin is 0.55 TB. This size difference has a huge impact on the cost of nodes and consequentially the ability to decentralize.

Dettol-tasting-menu

BSV(N) - Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (Not)

WoodenInformation730

BSV, not Bitcoin Cash

nullc

He sued the developers for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. His litigation wasn't funded by him but "loans" by suckers like Calvin Ayre, collateralize with the Bitcoin Wright claims to own. Presumably with an expectation that BSV would gain a lot of value if he won... Another element is that his supporters believe that wright could "regain" access to the Bitcoins some people claim belong to Satoshi-- worth many billions of dollars. And to some extent it was a forced move for wright: He started off with tax fraud, used the satoshi excuse to try to get funds to pay off the tax debt, then needed to explain his ability to repay that.... She swallowed the spider to catch the fly, I don't know why she swallowed the fly.

orcastalk

BSV baggies on suicide watch

Deimosx

Whats BSV?

Halo22B

So when does BSV go to zero or do all the "Visionaries" pivot from "we have a Messiah" to "it's all about the tech".....lol, get rekt

HSuke

That's for spam It's r/BitcoinCashSV for the cultists And r/BSV for the anti-cultists

Alex-Crypto

How so? These are UTXOs— there’s no room for Trojan. That’s why this was in heavy debate since 2018 or even earlier. It wasn’t something new out of nowhere like the others. Also new op_codes have been helpful. Adding is fiercely debated in BCH — bitcoincashresearch.org will show plenty of HEATED debates for years on even a multiply opcode. That’s one reason we cast off BSV and XEC.

shrazzy

People should just stick to the real Bitcoin. Don't need BSV, BCH, LTC

One_2_Three

...and BSV.

DeathScythe676

many have tried. I would suggest you take a look at network-effects principals. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) &#x200B; There were many "failed" bitcoin knock-off projects: Bitcoin Gold, BSV, BCash. I would suggest you never follow any of the figure heads that were involved with these projects. &#x200B; TLDR: many have tried to recreate the magic with a different proof of work coin or bitcoin knock-off. But the more people that use the OG "legit" Bitcoin, the more popular the bitcoin network becomes, which brings in more users, which makes bitcoin more popular, (repeat).

Cold-Put1264

What is the best way to split old legacy Bitcoin into BCH / BSV etc, for the purpose of selling them for more real BTC?

Bongressman

The stories are literally everywhere. Look harder. A lot of BTC maxi's talk about this. BCH or BSV being the first thing they were burned on, thinking it has "Bitcoin" in the name, so it must be the thing, right? Nope. Crash. New people in cryptocurrency xome in with zero knoledge of the difference. The evolution of education, though. Shit, people on CNBC think Etherium and Bitcoin are the same exact thing. Makes sense. Zero info coming in. People make mistakes.

Bongressman

BCH is a memecoin. It's competing with Doge. Why do you think Adam Back is telling people to short it. This happens every couple of years. BCH and BSV get confused for BTC but eventually end up where they are supposed to.

denariuz

BTC isn't bitcoin BSV is.