BSV

I_snort_FUD

If you think people in this sub or retail in general is moving the market I got some BSV to sell ya lmao

sgtslaughterTV

> Store of value was never mentioned in the white paper. Yes, but the creator of bitcoin addressed this in the opening letter to the cypherpunk mailing list. "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. We trust the central bank not to debase the currency, but human history is full of breaches of that trust." There's another quote about the protocol being set in stone. >Lightning Network requires trust in custodians. Ah yes, but there's the beauty of the crux of this argument - just because someone designed a lightning wallet where you don't have access to the keys doesn't mean the creators of that wallet automatically have access to the keys. Here is an excellent analogy: do you use a password manager? I used 1Password for a while, but they suffered a data breach. Luckily the attackers got away with nothing useful **specifically because of the way all user passwords are stored - even if the devs at 1Password wanted to harm their users they couldn't.** In all honesty, if you are trying to talk a BTC holder and convince them to dump their BTC for BCH / BSV / Insert Bitcoin Hardfork here, you're fighting a losing battle. There is no BCH etf and there is no BSV etf.

parakite

He complimented Lee for being a good money manager ( 'batting average'). I mentioned another example of a rich billionaire who was also a 'money manager', and who gave good returns too. But whose moral compass was loose. Same as it is for anyone who promotes obvious scams like BSV. So its totally relevant that way.

parakite

Tom Lee also used to shill BSV few years ago . We know where it went.

HSuke

Bitcoin Maxis, Ethereum Maxis, Solana Maxis, BSV Maxis, Hex Maxis, Fartcoin Maxis. All Maxis are terrible. They're just cultists who can't think logically or change their minds when new information is presented.

Ok-Buy-9583

$qubic, $kaspa or $BSV

YogurtCloset3335

I suspect it's a well-funded intel-backed operation. Chinese code, Russian "founder", huge Reddit bot presence, scary-sounding rhetoric on social etc. This is a big operation yet they seem to have zero physical presence. Reminds me of Craig Wright BSV op on BCH. Total BS in hindsight and they must've burned hundreds of millions on that big fail.

Krynxz

BSV

MoneyTeam824

I do agree with ETH, it’s second best to Bitcoin overall, but just look at the upside $LTC has from its current position, low market cap, insanely undervalued in my honest opinion while having the second lowest supply next to BTC 21 million (not including BSV, Bitcoin Cash) etc. 84 million is low and yes the Supply does matter, look at Bitcoin! Supply shock is going crazy people rushing to buy as much BTC, same will happen here with $LTC in my opinion, people will rush to buy as many cannot afford $BTC, LTC is next one up for money to flow in to and huge opportunity at this low market cap level! Open your eyes more!

jekpopulous2

ETC, BSV, BTG, XVG, LCC, VTC, HANA, FTC, & ZenCash have all been successful 51% attacked. What do they all have in common? They’re all proof of work chains with low hashrate. This is precisely why no new chains use POW. No POS chain (that I know of) has ever been 51% attacked but for a lot of these smaller POW chains all it takes is for a giant mining pool to flip a switch and take it over. Qubic isn’t even that powerful…. Foundry, AntPool, & F2Pool all have enough hashing power to 51% attack Monero tomorrow if they wanted to… they just don’t do it for obvious reasons.

pop-1988

The main reason is the Satoshi justification in the white paper - there's more value in mining fairly than there is in attacking The actual history of real 51% attacks (especially BTG) exposes a flaw in Satoshi's one block at a time calculations. The BTG attack stole money from Binance by mining a shadow chain tip for two hours - not one block at a time But SHA256 mining (BTC, BCH) is organized into mining pools. Pools are not miners. They're a reward distribution service to their members (miners). So they have a reputation to protect, not to use their members' hashes for crime BTG is small enough that a single miner could rent 51% hashpower for 2 hours - no pools anywhere in that scam BSV (SHA256) is famous for a period of having a single miner 51% attacking - for disruption, not for personal gain. Pools aren't supporting BSV

HSuke

That's an excellent question. BCH miners attacked BSV before. I don't know why BTC ones haven't done it to BCH miners. Maybe because it still costs millions of dollars, and there isn't enough animosity between the 2 communities anymore. If the BCH community really pissed off BTC miners, then it would be pretty easy for them to get attacked. But that would reignite a war and highlight the weakness of PoW.

SherbetFluffy1867

Ok, I'm going to assume your situation is this: you don't really understand the Bitcoin protocol and network well and if the US government didn't create the software then you are wondering why haven't they tried to kill it. I think, assuming that is your position, that they tried in the beginning to find Satoshi Nakamoto after Bitcoin began being used to backdoor funds to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. He went into hiding and they were never able to identify him/her/them. Since the software was open source and released to the world free and decentralized it was already too widespread to contain. This is just conjecture since we don't really know. As far as ways to attack Bitcoin, here is a ChatGPT generated list of vectors and ways it could be done. To date I'm unaware of any nation states ever being accused of attacking the network or protocol. The cool thing about Bitcoin is that it pretty much is always more profitable to expend resources to participate rather than attack it. Here's a succinct list of the main known attack vectors against the Bitcoin protocol as of July 2025: --- 1. Consensus-Level Attacks 51% Attack: Control >50% of hash rate to double-spend or censor transactions. Selfish Mining: Withhold blocks to gain disproportionate mining rewards. Timejacking: Manipulate node clocks to affect network time and block validity. Invalid Block Relay: Attempt to propagate invalid blocks to disrupt nodes (mostly mitigated). --- 2. Network Attacks Eclipse Attack: Isolate a node by controlling all its peers, enabling manipulation. Sybil Attack: Flood the network with fake nodes to disrupt communication or voting. Partitioning: Physically or virtually split the network (e.g. BGP hijack). Denial of Service (DoS): Target nodes or the mempool with spam or malformed data. --- 3. Mempool/Transaction-Level Attacks Fee Sniping: Reorg to claim high-fee transactions from past blocks. Transaction Malleability: Alter txIDs before confirmation (mostly mitigated via SegWit). Dust Attacks: Send tiny amounts to trace UTXO linkages and deanonymize. Pinning Attacks: Use low-fee unconfirmed parent transactions to prevent replacements. --- 4. Mining Attacks Block Withholding: Join a pool but never submit valid blocks—wastes pool's effort. Pool-Hopping: Switch between pools to maximize short-term gain, harming others. ASIC Manufacturer Attacks: Ship underperforming or backdoored devices. --- 5. Economic/Game-Theory Attacks Fee Market Manipulation: Spam or suppress transaction fees to affect block space market. Exchange Collusion: Coordinate withdrawals to manipulate mempool or price signals. Miner Bribing: Pay miners off-chain to reorg or censor certain transactions. --- 6. Protocol-Level Exploits Consensus Bugs: Software bugs causing chain splits (e.g. CVE-2018-17144). Inflation Bugs: Exploits that allow creation of extra coins. Soft Fork Exploits: Abuse of partial upgrade adoption to split or confuse nodes. --- 7. Social & Governance Attacks Social Engineering: Trick developers or maintainers to accept malicious proposals. Governance Capture: Influence devs/miners/users to support self-serving forks or changes. Fork Wars: Create confusion through competing chain splits (e.g. BCH/BSV history). --- 8. Cryptographic Attacks (Theoretical/Future) Quantum Attacks: Break ECDSA to steal funds (Post-quantum planning underway). Hash Collision: Break SHA-256 (currently infeasible). RNG Attacks: Exploit poor key generation to steal private keys.

BitConeMiner

Does he mean the bitcoin fork BTC? Or the original bitcoin, satoshis vision Bitcoin BSV?

Murky_Estimate1484

QRL (Only coin with Post-tQuantum specific encryption) World Coin (Major integration and defi functionality in the pipeline and major artificial intelligence implications) BSV (Only Bitcoin fork that can provide the TPS required for worldwide adoption)

sgtslaughterTV

I think you misunderstand. This is out of the hands of bitmain. There are many mining algorithms: scrypt (litecoin, dogecoin), SHA-256 (BTC, BCH, BSV), RandomX (monero), X11 (for some obscure coin called Dash) and tons more. Of these, I'm not sure which ones are quantum resistant. Bitmain already makes devices that use these algorithms to mine the coins I previously mentioned. But, for the sake of argument, let's say bitcoin devs propose using a new, tried and true quantum-proof mining algorithm - let's call it QP-256 (Quantum-Proof-256). They don't immediately make SHA-256 irrelevant overnight, and they could implement some kind of period of time where miners can use SHA-256 devices and QP-256 devices to accumulate bitcoin for (for example) 2 years before blocking out SHA-256 completely.

intelw1zard

There is really only BCH as a fork. BSV was invented by a scammer and guy who seriously tried to make people think he was Satoshi.

diradder

Why would I waste my time providing you, specifically, sources when your first answer to me was a lie? The blocksize did increase and still can increase in the future. > You have no idea how tiny BTCs throughput is. Here is a fun task for you: Calculate how long it would take for 10%, 50%, 80% or 100% of the population to open a single LN channel. But sit down for the answer. We are nowhere near these level of adoption and Bitcoin/LN devs have solutions to these (channels factories: UTXO bundling OP_CAT & OP_CTV, channel splicing, multi party channels). Why would we rush these when we're farm from the limits... that's the kind of things shitcoins like Bcash/BSV do, and you can see the results. > One would think Bitcoiners would put less importance on the printable FIAT The grandstanding and concern trolling is really useless. We all see your cult subreddit frontage when BCash pumps (and eventually always dumps), you care about fiat as much as anyone else in crypto. > Just FYI your post contains zero evidence. Just prose. Same for you, I won't be held to a standard you can't hold either, especially when you started with a lie. I've debated people like you for too long to fall in this trap.

sharebhumi

We are more likely to see BSV maxis.

diradder

1. Glad you've conceded immediately. The blocksize has increased. **And thus the throughput increased too.** And it can again if there is consensus for it. There's none though, because L2 scaling works well and fees on chain, to store data forever, remain reasonable. Not sure why you're trying to switch the debate to what's in blocks though... are your the block police now? Maybe you should investigate why Bcash's blocks are consistently *empty* (not a block scratched 1MB for the last 3 months... pathetic). 2. Moving the goalposts. You obviously aren't talking about fees in sats when you pretend Bcash is cheaper or "for the 99%" implicitly... stop being disingenuous you're talking about what users can afford in fiat, versus their purchasing power which overwhelmingly isn't counted in sats (yet). Every transaction you make in a LN channel divides its initial cost, and there is no limit to the number of transactions in one channel... I'll let you do the math, cost of the channel/∞ . These channels become cheaper when you use them. And if nobody wanted to transact on Bitcoin, how do you explain full blocks and LN capacity and node count growing, you're just deluded at this point. Or stuck in 2017 I guess, update you data/charts, it's time to move on. 3. Baseless dismissal, coins are moving, on and off chain. You can consult charts yourself, blocks are far from empty, the number of channels on LN increase, value allocated on LN increases (in BTC), and the LN node count also increases. Custodial LN usage doesn't invalidate Bitcoin's use as a payment network, and self-custodial solutions remain easily accessible for anyone wanting full control. That's something the Bcashers never got, providing a way to own your keys AND run nodes (Bitcoin and LN) is what is important to preserve and what users want. Even if a lot of them won't do it, the ability to do it matter a lot to them, because they lack this ability in the fiat system. Bcash/BSV did the opposite, making it harder and harder (more and more requirements) to do it, and they've failed. 4. We've always provided evidence, that's partly why you guys lost. But mostly because your "solutions" were unconvincing and technologically inappropriate. The continuous lies, promoted by literal criminals like Ver, Wright, Ayre in your camp never convinced a lot of people, save from few gullible people who still *troll* these forums aimlessly defending a dead chain, go figure. Bitcoiners aren't as easy to manipulate as you thought, and do tend to verify and not trust, which made all your attempts to "flip" Bitcoin fruitless. The market overwhelmingly chose Bitcoin, the alternative chains lost both users and economic activity. Lightning adoption, app integrations, and user base growth are all publicly verifiable... so no, this debate is settled, I'm just rehashing things we predicted would happen and that are happening as expected. While you're trying to reuse tired and debunked arguments against Bitcoin.

36onions

I hear you and I feel your pain! Maybe this will help you feel better.... To make a long story short, I bought dozens of Bitcoins in 2012. If not for my wife, I'd probably have a dozen or so more's worth of BTC held as other crypto from the BSV and BCH I got from holding way back then and making trades. Her ideas led to me losing almost every shred of crypto I had left. Now, I hold zero BTC. 🤡 Gotta take responsibility for your actions! You held the keys. You can't undo the past, only learn from it. Loss is painful, but it's the greatest teacher of all. Eternal lessons learned: Stick to your guns when you know you're right. Not your keys, not your crypto!

Murky_Estimate1484

QRL - Quantum Resistant Ledger (Wallets won’t get cooked) BSV - Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (High TPS, potential for growth as high adoption becomes the norm and people look for the Bitcoin name) Monero - (Privacy)

pop-1988

The paper assumes the decentralized node network has unlimited storage capacity. The software system itself can be modeled as it currently runs, but all the model's assumptions become irrelevant as the proposed usage dominates the blockchain - leading to retirement of node operators unwilling to upgrade, reduced recruitment of new nodes due to the cost, and centralization of the node network. One day. you wake up and discover there are a few dozen nodes in the network, and the blockchain is so big, they're all on AWS. So you didn't actually remove the single point of failure risk. You created a new identical risk For an extreme example of "let's sell this crypto as high-volume data storage", see BSV, where all the data is a result of "look how clever we are" demonstrations. The data isn't critical, but the blockchain is **11 Petabytes**. The few remaining nodes are on AWS. They'll probably be decommissioned before the end of 2025, if the businessman funding the BSV Association decides to stop paying the AWS fees

CryptoAd007

FakeToshi won it with his BSV fork.

NervousNorbert

No BSV?

Iksf

cmon -11% BSV is pretty beautiful tho isnt it, go bears go, at least for that stay away from my shit

Leithm

The BSV fork was extremely damaging fortunately long behing BCH now.

grndslm

Their path was the WRONG one. Layers > BCH. If BCH was consensus, then the majority of nodes would run that software. BTC will REMAIN consensus until something else takes it over, which simply won't happen. People choose to continue running BTC because it's the better design. And only a select few can run BSV nodes anyway, because it's like a 12 TB base layer Blockchain... not decentralized. This is why keeping things small AND layered is the right approach.... within 10 years, every new cell phone could run with a Bitcoin node built-in.

RefrigeratorLow1259

Bitcoin isn't 'consensus' otherwise there wouldn't have been forks like BCH and BSV...

Foreign-Citron-1646

That's the problem. It costs around 50 cents to make a transaction on BTC. Nobody is going to pay that for everyday use. This is why Bitcoin SV is the real bitcoin and will eventually take over. You can buy these for around $30 each by the way. The transaction fees on BSV are about 1/1000 of a penny.

Analog_AI

If you think this is a thing for Bitcoin cash fans, imagine how BSV fans must feel. 🤣😂😆 They have a lorry sized block carrying a grain of sugar.

ghost-age-1000

Any thoughts about BSV

AwesomeKalin

BSV has a 1mil+ TPS, on SV node. Much, much more with Teranode. Solana was never the fastest L1

AwesomeKalin

BSV + B protocol

Zealousideal_Set_333

I would make the case that u/nullc has personally done more to fight against the BSV scammers than anyone else in the entire bitcoin space. Are you a BSV supporter? If so, *your* credibility is dented. ... **or** are you just ignorant that r/BSV is an anti-BSV sub (much like r/btc is held by bch proponents)? Again, *your* credibility is dented by slinging mud at other people's reputations without even understanding what you're talking about.

uncapchad

If? Mate, copycats have been around for years - some still have their followings e.g. BSV. Ditto for thieves, some are less mysterious than others. Some are drained by the very same developer(s). Roughly 5300 new tokens are released every day

DangerHighVoltage111

Whos arguing with the BSV guy? Not me. If you think BCH is endangered you haven't looked around.

HSuke

An "overhated" index would probably also include BSV, Safecoin, Trump, Pulse/Hex, Luna Classic, Ethereum Classic, World, and XRP If you're looking for wife-changing gains from those ...

ikzz1

Wrong. It will be worth 1 BTC, 1 BCH and 1 BSV.

cH3x

* 1 BTC (Bitcoin) - worth about $96,400 today * 1 BTG (Bitcoin Gold) - worth about $0.92 today * 1 BCH (Bitcoin Cash) - worth about $370 today * 1 BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) - worth about $37 today * 1 XEC (eCash) - you can get about 5,000 for 1 cent today

Alexzlorde

Interesting perspective. I'm siding with Mechanic and Kratter on this one. I'm not impressed with the way Core is handling the situation, the change in culture/values. These are demonstrated in their choice to ignore the improvements for spam management previously proposed by Luke, demonstrating the type of Bitcoin they prefer. There are plenty of shitcoins for this already, and as expected, their market presence is collapsing. Not the Bitcoin for me, so my friends and I sharing similar preferences will vote through consensus using our nodes and removal of economic support for Core. Some may call it censorship, but I'm not interested in centralized slavery, which I believe could result from subsequent data driven changes (give an inch and lose a mile). I'm not interested in my small nodes losing viability due to spam. Regardless, let the war begin, enjoy your future version of jpeg BCash, BSV, or whatever you prefer to name it (history rhymes rather than repeats and all that).

the_bueg

You seem to be confusing "blockchain" with "bitcoin". Some of what you said is true about Bitcoin - not blockchain technology. There are legitimate criticism of blockchain technology in general. But very different than the ones you listed for bitcoin. Algorand, for example, has it's pros and cons but none of the ones you listed. The copy/paste criticism is pretty rediculous though. Being open-source is one of cryptos greatest strengths, not a weakness. There are over 100 hard forks of Bitcoin alone. How many can you name? I can think of three - because I got coins in my wallet from their forks: BCH, BSV, and Bitcoin Gold, whatever the symbol is. All essentiall worthless now. There are thousands upon thousands of forks of various crypto projects. Few of which have gone very far, and almost none of which hurt those they "copy/pasted" from. Literally the only exception to that, is Ethereum. Depending on who you ask or how you define it, ETH is the copy/paste fork, and ETC is the original - and yet ETH went on to win. In fact ETH went on to fork again from PoW to PoS while ETC continued to not fork. To this day ETC maintains the entire original PoW tx history.

dos_passenger58

I think instead of BCH, you're thinking of BSV

Analog_AI

Craig wright went with large block sizes and this led his BSV fork to become centralized and to have reversible transactions. This is not why Bitcoin was supposed to be. So people didn't join his bitcoin fork and nobody believes his claims to be satoshi. And he isn't.

TinyGrade8590

You can do it numerobook.com USDC from Polygon/Sol, Bitcoin, BSV. Peer to peer. You can buy any crypto for 0 fees

slash_networkboy

only one of them... It takes only one miner to initiate a fork, now of course if only one does it it won't gain any traction... but BSV is a great example of not "all of them" agreeing. To OP there will only be a finite amount the same way that 4 bits will only ever allow a total count of 15d or Fh.

crunchyeyeball

It's a Bitcoin (BTC) address. The message is saying you should only send Bitcoin (BTC) to the address. You should *not* send anything else to the address, such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Bitcoin SV (BSV), ETH, ADA, gold bullion, sandwiches, bovine waste, etc.

DBRiMatt

I was going to buy 50k worth of Bitcoin, but that wouldn't even get me 1 whole Bitcoin. Instead I bought 10,000 BSV's! - Someone... probably

Lillica_Golden_SHIB

I would usually say "we are at cc, everything is possible", but even BSV looks like a stretch

inShambles3749

BSV? The shitcoin that got hacked multiple times and belongs to Me wrong that filthy piece of shit who tried to claim that he's Satoshi nakamoto? Yeah go ahead have fun with that lmao

I_Hate_Reddit_69420

Why in the world would anyone want to buy BSV

Fear_Blind83

Plenty of exchanges have BSV trading pairs 🤷‍♂️ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-sv/#Markets

NoChanceItsHer

Find yourself doing something other than throwing your money at the scamcoin BSV. I guess you've heard of Craig Wright or...? Buy Bitcoin. STFU.

ComprehensiveCrab50

Use BCH. Or HBAR, XLM, BSV, NANO. If you're gonna use a potentially coopted currency anyways, at least use one with upside potential and fees low enough to actually be usable as currency

Motor-Ocelot-9345

Those other copies and forks you're talking about aren't Bitcoin (BTC). Just like BSV is not BTC BCH is not BTC Nodes run on consensus - if it's not BTC it's not on.

mwdeuce

XRP is the 3rd most repugnant crypto. 1st and 2nd are BSV and BCASH, resp.

tungfa

es gibt kein andere BTC , viele haben es versucht (Bcash, BSV …) , und alle haben bewiesen das nur BTC BTC ist - fair launch and all

Sea-Caterpillar-1700

BTC derivatives. LTC, BCH, BSV, DGB.

diradder

You can repeat "NGU" all you want, nobody is talking about price here except you, it is a typical strawman. Spinning up nodes doesn't change much besides signaling something about users to miners (eg.for an UASF)... but it is only one minor part of what miners consider when they choose a node implementation. You didn't make any sound argument, you simply claim that since Bitcoin Core dominate the share of nodes currently running, the devs control the network and / or its future, but since you don't substantiate this control in any meaningful way, and since this situation can change very easily/cheaply if node operators don't update or move to another node implementation (of which there are many used in production), your claim falls flat... and your musings about hijackings when we simply see consensus working as expected are also not really worth addressing. >First they laugh at you >Then they fight you >Then you win >Then they ignore you. Yikes, Bitcoiners have laughed and maybe fought few weeks against Bcashers (who used every dirty trick in the book to try to confuse people about Bitcoin as a brand) back in the end of 2017 and early 2018... but it got old quickly, and once Bcash died its slow death promoting more scams with multiple additonal forks (like BSV) or their broken "token" impementation... so this cringe quote really doesn't apply here. You are never winning this, people don't like getting scammed. Go away.

Roland_91_

As an example. You own Bitcoin, and when you die you want that Bitcoin to be automatically transferred to your sister.  Bitcoin cannot do that. You need to store the keys with a lawyer who then passes them on in the event of your death. BTC requires the system to function because yes it is hard money, but it is "only" hard money. It doesn't do anything else.  A smart contract means you can program your money, and set up a time locked  transfer, or automatically pay out loans, or prove ownership of things, track things, and perform actions when certain criteria are met like paying it the winner in a poker game without having a centralised casino as the third party(this still cannot be done by any chain). I hold NFTs that are tied to African housing and mortgages which pay me every month. You can't do that on Bitcoin because there is no way to do it. Bitcoin was the first hard money, but litecoin is equally as hard, as are the dozen or so variations like BCH BSV, BCG, BCD...and so on. Cardano is fixed cap and provably as secure as Bitcoin. Just through a different mechanism. A window and a door are the same but different. 

RaisePuzzleheaded26

I think the big thing people are missing is that the government is potentially holding BCH and BSV. Confirmation is going to make those coins rally hard.

intelw1zard

Well BSV was created by a lunatic and a scammer so I hope not.

Smiling_Jack_

I heard they're going to add BSV and ETC to the strategic reserve next.

ChaoticDad21

Yeah…nothing like hard forks to create division within a chain. Both of those (and BSV) have done nothing but slide too. The consensus can say to undo some transactions, but that’s still very shitty.

coxenbawls

How did we get BCH and BSV? Anyone can fork eth or btc any time, that's just blockchain basics. The DAO hack was handled by forking out the hacked eth, subsequent transactions were never rolled back, unlike the bitcoin overflow bug. But to the main point, there is zero chance of eth forking or rolling anything back now that it's a mature network. Remember that they did nothing to save a $billion in locked Parity funds, i.e. EIP-999 was rejected

AwesomeKalin

Meanwhile BSV can do up to 1M TPS with 0 failures

typtyphus

BSV

B-ILL2

BSV we have the weather on chain.

BeginningBeautiful69

546 satoshis is the standard dust limit for Bitcoin transactions using legacy P2PKH outputs (these first type that start with a '1'. This means that any transaction output smaller than 546 sats is considered dust and miners may reject/ignore it. Originally the number was based on a calculation of how many bytes is used to take to send the transaction and making sure that it didn't cost more in fees than the output, clogging up the network. As there are now more efficient ways to send transactions the numbe rof sats considered dust is technically lower, but 546 seems to have stuck as a marker. Google 'memo BSV spam advertising' and it will lead you to some interesting old threads on this topic.

Dettol-tasting-menu

Won’t be in fiat. It will just be another 1 BCH, 1BSV, etc Pretty much worthless

transatoshi_mw

BSV = Bitcoin Satan version

BeginningBeautiful69

Some wallets will allow you to freeze/lock UTXOs if you don't want to spend them. Sounds like you know this already but some companies use small amounts of btc to track addresses or advertise (for example memo BSV) - commonly called dusting. As you've described though, the similarity of the address to yours means that this is a 'poison address' attack. As long as the fees are low enough, it won't hurt you to spend the 330 sats. If you're doing it right, you're not reusing addresses in Bitcoin anyway. Poison address attacks are more common on chains that generally use static addresses (Ethereum / EVM).

BuyHighValueWomanNow

> No reputable exchange would ever list BSV. You keep mentioning Dr. Wright and BSV. That indicates you are infatuated with them; you must really love them or else you woulldn't keep mentioning them lol > lightning transactions eventually end up on chain. If they end up on-chain, in a peer to peer manner, then why use lightning? If they don't show up in a peer to peer on-chain, why use lightning? What is wrong with your layer one? It must be clunky, slow, and inefficient! Damnnn!!

sgtslaughterTV

> All major exchanges have scam coins on them. Your point? No reputable exchange would ever list BSV. >If it isn't on-chain then there is no global proof, no immutable ledger lightning transactions eventually end up on chain. stop being disingenuous.

PirateSKB

I actually just thought about something, there's been so many projects here shilled over the years. Has anyone ever stopped to think that the cycle changes over time, and many projects will die and won't recover? Shouldn't we be looking into new projects that weren't shilled here before that might even do a 10x (or 100x) during an alt season? Examples of alts shilled here over the years : Eth, XVG, Raiblocks (Nano), Xtrabytes, Bomb, Harmony One, Cro, Nullex, BCH, Matic, Shiba Inu, Dot, Aave, Vechain, Kas, Grt, ICP, Nexo, Cel, ETC, EOS, Jasmy, XTZ, BSV, Antshares (Neo), Mana, Ampleforth, Dash, Yearn Finance, Sushi, Cartesi, Celr, Bitconnect (before it became a meme), Banano, Syscoin, Cosmos, Steem, etc

polymath_uk

Thanks. I've got a handful of LTC from years ago and BTC/BCH/BSV from when the forks happened. It doesn't seem that I need to modify my modest portfolio. 

thegtabmx

With the logic, then just buy BSV or TRAC.

_IscoATX

But the BSV website told me he is protecting the true Bitcoin! How could they jail Satoshi?

DeviljhoFood

Capital "Bitcoin" is a protocol and would rarely, if ever, be pluralized. Maybe you could say "BSV and BCH are Bitcoins," but it doesn't really sound right. Lower-case "bitcoin" is a unit, and it is pluralized when you have more than one. For example, "I have 5 bitcoins." As u/longonbtc pointed out, [Satoshi himself used the word this way](https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1hgiqiw/the_word_bitcoin_is_plural/m2khfqb/).

_IscoATX

Obviously it’s Craig Wright. BSV is the real Bitcoin /s

SatoshisButthole

Lol BSV

f0o1g11

when you forget that things like $BCH and $BSV exist...

Agronopolopogis

LTC, BVH, and BSV come to mind. If we remove the "no entity" control requirement, options explode. A governing council of any form isn't inherently bad and allows for continuous growth and development to maintain parity with the needs of the present-day climate.

Madmanindahouse

Had 8.5k 2x that money on BSV. Bought 3btc did a 3x leverage trade on bitmex. It dumped from 6k to 3k and then I went to my bed and cried.

zachmoe

Bitcoin is a reverse fork of the Real Bitcoin (BSV).

TheGreatCryptopo

BCH and BSV. Both confined to the shit pile of history.

RatherCynical

Superior monetary policy. The monetary policy of the dollar is central bank controlled. Reducing interest rates has the effect of increasing the rate at which new money supply enters the economy because money gets duplicated every time a loan is made. If the government wishes to spend money it doesn't have, and other countries or investors won't buy the debt, the government can give the central bank the authority to be the buyer of last resort. The central bank buys the asset using a loan they issue. But where does that loan money come from? Nowhere. The central bank has a master key to the financial system. They can simply enter a number to add as much money as they wish to the economy. We saw this happen during the pandemic response. Not in developing countries. In the United States, the European Union, and the rest of the G7 countries. The QE that happened since the Great Financial Crisis became small in comparison. This actually gets worse in future crises. The working age population of the country is shrinking. The older people are living longer. They're retiring, needing social security, putting pressure on healthcare, needing Medicare, and Medicaid. This means the US and other developed countries (especially the United Kingdom, Germany, and so on) are forced to borrow more money in the future that nobody has. This is a deeply structural, demographics based issue. It is a train that can not be stopped. The only way politically acceptable is to simply provide more liquidity, with bigger bailouts, and much bigger QE in the future. The loss of value of dollars will accelerate over time. To store your wealth, you must carefully consider the monetary properties of your money. Gold has supply dynamics that make it resist monetary supply inflation. Bitcoin is simply a faster version of that. Bitcoin is also the most secure money in the world because it is impossible to attack or commit fraud against without first controlling more hashrate than the rest of the network combined. The security model is the infrastructure and energy required. The cost of the security model also prevents the bubble from ever popping back to old lows. When nobody on earth can find a new Bitcoin for $3k or $100 anymore, the higher prices become the new normal. The amount of future Bitcoins emitted is guaranteed by the protocol to go down by 50% every 210,000 blocks. The security model also means that game-theorerically, nobody chooses a clone. People argue that anyone can copy the code or that thousands of new coins are created. This is not good reasoning because no one in their right mind stores wealth in an insecure protocol vulnerable to attack (see: double spending attacks on BSV) The supply shock combined with the hoarding effect (both because everyone wants to own as much of the money supply as possible, and because of the fiat debasement described in the earlier paragraphs) causes these cyclical patterns of manias and depressions. If you're unfamiliar with supply shocks: Think what happens when a drought affects the amount of produce that gets grown. Or what happens to car prices when there's a supply crunch for making chips. Or what happens to egg prices when there's Avian flu. The prices usually re-normalise later because the higher prices motivate supply to be brought back online. Bitcoin is different. It is programmed in a way that old supply can never return. And new supply shocks are always coming in the future.

jawni

😬 that's basically what this guy predicted, hopefully not a top for everything... >Now that we're durably into new BTC highs, I'm going to make a series of my own personal top signals in a bit, but want to share one early: Look at retail bags that don't really get a crypto-native "i'm buying this because I know retail will bid it" early pump. Quick 🧵 on one: >A great example is Quant (QNT) Retail fucking *loves* this bag, but it's one of those esoteric retail-only bags that crypto OG/insiders don't have as part of their "I don't believe in this long term, but I'm gonna buy a bag because I know retail will buy it later" front run plays >There's not an exact science to this, but you can use several of these coins as a "canary in a coalmine" warning signals, and look for overlap/confluence. Doesn't need to hit new highs - once QNT is at a 40-50% mean reversion to last cycle, alarm bells should be going off >Like I circles in the above screenshot, think like **180-200** dollars. Once you see quant near or in that area (let alone above it), and other retail cult coins (ADA, etc), let alone absolute garbage like BSV/BCH is up at 40-50% its prev USD highs, be *extremely cautious* https://x.com/cryptoklotz/status/1855645040497815663 current price of QNT is $150 :/

serious_beach_monk

Liking what I hear. Finally I can see people waking up about what BTC has become. BSV - true original bitcoin protocol! Check it out if you haven't. Also, Hijacking Bitcoin by Roger Ver is a great read for people that need waking up to being brainwashed by Blockstream etc.

uncapchad

A bitcoin address would be accepted on LTC chain because LTC is a hard fork of BTC. Ditto for BCH and BSV. Addresses exist on both chains.

ChaoticDad21

Look at BCH and BSV… two famous forks that failed.

Fear_Blind83

That's called a hard fork, which has happened a couple of times already BCH, BSV etc. The nodes that rejected the fork stayed with the original chain and kept the consensus, BCH and BSV started a new chain which wasn't adopted by the majority of node operators and the original BTC blockchain carried on without them.

RatherCynical

Money is forever and always a bubble. The real question is, "Why doesn't it pop?" Why doesn't Bitcoin crash back to $300/each like from a few years ago? That's everything to do with the emission schedule and the hashrate. Everyone wants to own as much money as possible, therefore, will want to own as much Bitcoin/gold/silver as possible. That makes it inherently bubbly. The thing that stops it popping is lack of new supply extracted cheaply. If someone can mine Bitcoins today at $100/each, you bet that Bitcoin will dump hard. But they can't. They can hardly get some at $50k+ each. And it's guaranteed to get harder to get new Bitcoins in the future. This story is repeated throughout history. Glass beads in Africa stopped being good money when Europeans mass produced glass beads. Rai stones stopped being good money when technologically advanced folks mass produced rai stones. Gold stayed a good money because: Gold is an element that can't be produced and is dense enough to be in the core of the earth. Naturally, it is scarce and can't be mass produced. Gold is impossible for humans, despite technological prowess, to debase at any significant rate. It has a very high stock to flow, and it has a constant difficulty adjustment. Bitcoin is the first time we were able to replicate it digitally because Satoshi figured out how to solve the Byzantine General's Problem. Crypto is a winner takes most game. Most forks like BSV, BCH, etc. all bleed against Bitcoin because it's extremely insecure. They could be double spent against, easily (rented hashrate). Bitcoin continues to win because it has the largest hashrate advantage. It takes a true disruptor that innovates a solution to a very significant problem that can steal marketshare from Bitcoin. The only one that likely will disrupt Bitcoin is Kaspa.

sgtslaughterTV

> He was ordered to put that up by Mellor - a judge that has ruled against him before and that Craig Wright has appealed and eventually won - see the source... (https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/05/13/bitcoins-file-format-protectable-in-copyright-a-wright-decision/) I read this and the fact that you are still posting in support of craig and I just could not help but roll my eyes. I am studying cybersecurity and one of the very central topics that we study is non-repudiation, as well as digital forensics. >Anyone with a brain who sees how BSV is working realises that is it the vision of Satoshi. If you've actually read Satoshi's emails and forum posts and then listened to more than 5 minutes of Craig Wright talking will realise BSV is the genuine bitcoin. If you actually went back and read all of Satoshi's original posts on bitcointalk, to the cypherpunk mailing llist, and then compare it to what craig says and does in real life, you know that Craig is a liar and a fraud, and BSV is the most centralized hard fork that is backed and manipulated by a billionaire Calvin Ayre. Given that you are posting to reddit on an account that is less than 5 months old and the bulk of your post history is about who is satoshi or BSV, I am going to have to chalk you up to just being a paid shill. https://prnt.sc/APjZoLxb-jYo https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Feiohubii7kw91.jpg - this should be the single most eye-opening evidence that you see on the topic.

serious_beach_monk

Yeah exactly. Bitcoin as per the Whitepaper is BSV Bitcoin Satoshi Vision. Bitcoin is this sort of digital gold that has implemented Taproot and Segwit. The BTC addresses don't even start with the number 1 anymore, and don't have the digital signatures. Won't be long until Elon Musk starts using BSV and dumping his Segwit BTC.

serious_beach_monk

which one, BSV, BCH or BTC?

serious_beach_monk

which one? BCH, BSV or BTC?

serious_beach_monk

BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision). Literally the bitcoin protocol in the white paper, so capped at 21 million, proof of work, and can scale to millions of transactions per second. The genuine Bitcoin at under 100 USD per coin. Bargain.

HighValueWomanBook

You didn't get the BTC 'B', you got the BSV 'B'. The BTC 'B' is tilted. The BSV 'B' is upright like yours.

intelw1zard

Except BSV was invented by a serial fraudster and scammer who then also tried to claim to be the inventor of BTC. I got no problems w the BCH peeps.