Craig 'Faketoshi' Wright's BSV association released a new hardfork client. The new protocol may allow anyone cooperating with miners or the admin of a centrally controlled “whitelist” to confiscate any BSV coins from any user at any time
If we were to draw an equivalency to the bear market of EOY 2018 (almost exactly 4 years ago), my gut feeling is that we are at 2018's 5,000-5500 USD range and could still be on the way down. Bullish and Bearish scenarios in this thread
sure yeah, real Bitcoin (that's BSV, watch out for fake "Bitcoin"s) can do that already, & is rolling out a node upgrade in about six months that will do 1.5 million transactions a *second* which is ,, wait how much is that a month ,, lol uh 3.942e+12 it's so many that it gave me scientific notation, uh 4 trillion tx/month apparently ,, that's not in a live chain but it's in serious sustained testing so that's a realistic number to expect
no what i'm talking about is the entire chain "BTC" that you know of as "Bitcoin" *is not Bitcoin* & was publicly hacked back around 14/15, only BSV is Bitcoin, "BTC" is worthless & doomed ,, the main confusing thing is that everyone here is wrong :/
hi, sorry about the confusion, but someone should let you know, that "Bitcoin" is entirely fake, it's not Bitcoin at all, only BSV is Bitcoin & "BTC" is doomed ,, i don't know how that information affects your life but i thought you deserved a warning, let me know if you have any questions
I said none of those things, you're reading way too much into it. Of course if a chain can improve it should improve (and btw BCH/BSV'ers actually disagree here, since they to stick as much as possible to the original paper), but blocksizes aren't that simple, increasing blocksize also increases the blockchain size. And the way bitcoin is made there's no real solution for that, that's why there are better chains to deal with high transaction throughputs. They are fundamentally different in a way that BTC simply can't do. So in the context of chains that are forks of BTC there's no real reason to increase the blocksize (as of yet, there might be in the future). But even if there would be a reason right now, the descision which chain would be the main one after such a change would still be decided by the majority.. As for the propaganda, censorship, and all that stuff, again of course the world would be better without it, but there's always going to be idiots and trolls in the world that think that's funny or people who just have an agenda I was just saying it was completely unrelated to the reason why a certain chain was chosen. Just for context, I'm far from a BTC maxi, but yea your final statement is somewhat correct, BTC won so BTC is Bitcoin simple as that. If BCH won, BCH would've been bitcoin, same with BSV and the thousands of other forks. It's not decided by just you or me, it's decided by everyone by literally putting their money where their mouth is. That's why I said it was simple, there's no conspiracies there, it's exactly working as intended for a decentralized system.
Sure there were accusations and ddos attacks, that's still going on between so many chains. But the reason BTC is the considered the real BTC is much simpler, it was a decentralized majority decision, just how it's supposed to work. If most people would've sided with BCH then that chain would've been the biggest one, simple as that. Same thing with the BCH/BSV split, there's a reason why they're so much smaller than BTC, people just don't care about them as much. And like I mentioned in my first reply, when it comes to blocksize, there's no real reason to increase that for throughput. There are much better blockchains out there that are way more efficient for high transaction throughputs.
the "BCH" ticker was also stolen from Bitcoin--- i'm mildly amused by how it was hijacked by some "anarchist" pirates & hauled away to the caribbean as their booty, but uh mostly still pissed at them, that was fucking ridiculous the only Bitcoin that matters is BSV sorry about the confusion let me know if there's anything i can do to help :/
Ethereum was never a very good design at all :( the only reason why people desperately used Ethereum was that at the time BSV was being intentionally limited by some confused hackers & so people thought they needed to use something else ,,, it was all just a misunderstanding sorta :/ the price of eth has been going up lately b/c they played the "tokenomics" game w/ it, which uh, could be a fun gambling game if you thought of it that way, but isn't serious *or even vaguely legal* as a way to operate an actual financial system
> it'll be surprising to you what that sentence you said comes to mean No, it won't. I've listened to moronic shitcoiners make vague doomsday predictions like this for a decade. You honestly sound like a BCH/BSV lunatic. Have fun losing more of your money.
Well, I'm sure he'd argue that BSV is failing to dominate due to said malicious interests artificially suppressing it and generally being mean poopooheads by blinding the sheeple to the undeniable majesty of the man, the myth, the legend** Craig Wright. But yes =) ** ^also ^the ^chronic ^plagiarist ^and ^liar ^but ^I ^digress...
In case you're newer to crypto: Bitcoin has had a couple of high-profile splits over the years, as portions of the community disagreed about how to proceed and what trade-offs to make. The first was the BTC - BCH fork in 2017, and later we got the BCH - BSV fork. The former was based on issues around scaling and block size, and frankly had valid perspectives on both sides though obviously the BTC side "won". The latter (BSV) layers on the additional wrinkle of a personality cult built around Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi and who acolytes believe is Satoshi despite abundant evidence to the contrary. So it's a little wackier. Regardless, it's important to understand that forks simply represent alternative perspectives on what the network should be, as represented by competing hashpower. This ability to fork is a key aspect of democratic expression on the blockchain--anyone has the right to try to gather support for an idea, argue for its adoption, and initiate a split if no agreement is reached. And after a split, the "will of the people" (so to speak) is expressed in which chain is more supported. Generally speaking we call the more-supported chain the "real" one, and more often than not the other ones die out. But when the fork occurred due to strongly-held convictions, you can have minority chains that continue to hold on to the belief that their chain is the "real" one, even if it lags in popularity. That's true of hardliners in the BCH and BSV communities--they believe that Bitcoin was essentially hijacked by malicious special interests and that their own chains represent the "real" Bitcoin as envisioned by Satoshi. So, it's not that this guy believes there's more than one Bitcoin; it's that he believes that BSV, and not BTC, literally *is* the true Bitcoin.
He's a BSVer; to him, BSV is the real Bitcoin. He means he believes that various interests hijacked Bitcoin's development, steering it toward what it is today and away from the "true" Bitcoin as embodied by BSV. (To be crystal clear: I'm just translating, not making that assertion myself.)
ofc in the sense that there are three projects currently using the name "Bitcoin" two of those projects are absurd, one of the absurd ones is the one that's popular, which is fucked up, the only actual Bitcoiny "Bitcoin" currently operating is BSV
sigh, unfortunately the information you need is that *THAT ENTIRE BITCOIN CHAIN IS FAKE*, the only real Bitcoin is BSV,,, that you can't make cheap transactions w/ that "Bitcoin", which has always been one of the most important leading attributes of real Bitcoin, *ought to be a clue to you that something is terribly wrong*
this is b/c what they're dividing by, the number of transactions it's able to do, was forcefully limited by the hack of keeping the temporary variable MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE is place--- this should be a clue to you that *this is not Bitcoin or even vaguely Bitcoin-like*,, the only currently functional realistic Bitcoin is BSV,, sorry about the confusion
The contention that fake "Bitcoin" came out of the hard fork as BTC is not hidden to me I'm aware there are people waiting for the "real Bitcoin" to pull the rug on the foolish followers of fake BTC and deliver on the vision of Satoshi Until then, perception is reality but maybe you can convince Bukele to switch to BSV. BTC is certainly never working as a unit of exchange
you're missing that Bitcoin actually is perfectly scalable, but some scammers took over the "Bitcoin" brand w/ a fake Bitcoin that doesn't work at all, they had to present it to them as if Bitcoin worked or they'd risk people like you noticing that they're running a scam attempting to hide the real Bitcoin (BSV)
Its called marketing to a very active and interested audience (especially in bullruns), a better use case than most of the top 50 coins even have. Tell me the use case of Luna Classic, GT, CFX, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, BSV, Doge or thousands of other coins that are worth hundreds of times more than Moons.
the crazy high fees should be a sign to you that something's terribly wrong ,, really this "Bitcoin" you're buying isn't Bitcoin at all, it's a forked hacked altered "Bitcoin" that doesn't work how Bitcoin is supposed to work ,, BSV is the only real Bitcoin ,, sorry about the confusion
There's no measure of security. Bitcoin is either secure or not. Bitcoin is insecure if it is within the capacity of law enforcement to shut down all the nodes - if there were so few node operators in locations which are vulnerable to international police cooperation Bitcoin is currently secure For comparison, the BSV clone of Bitcoin was modified in a way which effectively concentrates that node network into AWS datacenters. It could be shut down with one official order to Amazon, either by HSI or a court
Naaaah it is of course needed at some point for opening and closing ln channels, but step by step and not to much. But only if needed therefore. Just to Do it for normal transactions wont help, only in small Environments like today with almost no usage of for example bch. The people have to Look, what is more likely and important. It is constantly worked on lightning, for example that you dont need watchtowers anymore or cant even loose anything in a channel with forced closed etc and also to make combination settlements, where x people open or vlose multiple lightning Paths at the same time etc. Dont get me wrong, i also like bch, and non of them is perfect but from logical point if view i see that Roger ver say himself, if bch would be used worldwide, there would only be about 10 to maximum 100 nodes able to handle this and we would need blocks in size of i think it was 52 GB. That is Just to much centralisation for me. The best what bch could Do, would be working on a own lightning instead of some defi shitcoin stuff. And one point i heared which i never thought about but find it quite interesting was that it can be a Problem to have a cheap layer 1. Because than it would not cost much for an identity to spam it and also it could be possible that the space is not used as intended because it would be used as a data storage. That Problem was one which BSV had. There was some i think it Was weather center which Just put all their data into BSV because it Was cheaper than a own data/server and while doing it on a wider scale blocks would be full or more full without necessary containing more transactions. So bigger and cheaper blocks would/could Lea Just to more useless junk which makes the blocks full again which would lead to the next increase and would be running arround circles and only delaying a Problem. But i agree, that at the current state, ln itself works fine during transactions, but to get to the point and back, opening channels etc is still a Problem they have to optimise and Do a lot of work.
actual Bitcoin, BSV, is far more difficult to censor & control than the fake Bitcoin, censoring most transactions by hacking it to keep MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE in permanently makes it easy to go the rest of the way & censor the last few remaining transactions
I'm always fascinated by BSV shills. Did you drop out of high school and just fall into a deep hole of smoking meth and killing your brain cells? Did you read article after article of how much of a scammer and fraud Craig Wright is and think to yourself "nah, no way man, this guy is totally the real Satoshi!"? Do you believe the J6 events and election were frauds? Do you believe in Q? Do you follow people like Alex Jones? Just so interesting that people so stupid can exist.
hey does that make you suspicious at all that something strange might be going on, perhaps that someone's lying to you b/c if you're getting sick of this shit you can come over to regular old Bitcoin (BSV) where the fees are literally a thousandth of a cent
Probably not. See this interview https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/gary-gensler-on-meeting-with-sbf-and-his-crypto-crackdown.html > pretty much every sort of crypto transaction already falls under the SEC’s jurisdiction except spot transactions in bitcoin itself and the actual purchase or sale of goods or services with cryptocurrencies Bad for Litecoin > Everything other than bitcoin," Gensler told me, "you can find a website, you can find a group of entrepreneurs, they might set up their legal entities in a tax haven offshore, they might have a foundation, they might lawyer it up to try to arbitrage and make it hard jurisdictionally or so forth." In other words, there are people behind these cryptocurrencies using a variety of complex and legally opaque mechanisms, but at the most basic level, they are trying to promote their tokens and entice investors. (Bitcoin, because of its unique history and creation story, is fundamentally different from other crypto projects in this respect.) Bad for Litecoin. Bad for Monero. Or maybe not Litecoin has a foundation. But it wasn't created as a centralized scheme for enriching the founders, or an attempt to circumvent regulation, in the way described in the above Gensler quote. In the "why was it made?" sense, the only real difference between Bitcoin and Litecoin is that Litecoin's founder made no effort to be anonymous Monero has a community funding system, not a foundation. Again, this doesn't fit the regulation-evasion description in the Gensler quote Dogecoin has identifiable founders, but they've retired. There is a Dogecoin foundation, but it has no actual relationship to Dogecoin. It's fake, and plays a destructive spoiler role In the list of a few hundred actual cryptocurrencies (ignoring smart tokens riding on ETH and other blockchains), this evaluation can be made. GRIN is onnocent. BEAM might not be. ETH tried to avoid regulation by issuing an airdrop in France. The Gensler quote mentions this as a negative (doesn't name ETH explicitly) But the "security or not" game is a digression. Any law can be used to prosecute any perceived enemy. E-Gold was smashed by money laundering accusations. Liberty Dollar was smashed by coin counterfeiting charges All centralized cryptocurrencies are regulatory targets. If the SEC loses a lawsuit charging unlawful security, the DoJ can follow up with something different BSV is a special case. With no awareness that he was making himself a target, its founder deliberately took Bitcoin and made a variant which is now centralized. But it won't be attacked by regulators. It's doomed by its own folly The reality falls somewhere between Gensler's literal claim that Bitcoin is the only one, and the fanboy's "not my coin" faith belief in all the others. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 10 years of regulatory crackdowns leaves 4 coins standing - BTC, LTC, XMR, DOGE
It’s already very clear the low fee options (or no fee options…lol) have been put the side and are not used much. See all forks of BTC that increased throughout like BCH…. BSV is a joke but same story. Nano is free banano is free….. very little traction. I think cryptocurrency (without further innovation) is only a good monetary system for truly unbanked ppl. Third word regions and where there is no stable currency. In the US? Pure speculation and “store of value” are the only real use cases. You can’t buy coffee with BTC or eth when the “gas” is 10 bucks at a minimum. Channels on lightening are never going to get close to challenging the worldwide credit card systems either with its current speed and cost….at least with what data I’ve seen. This also predicates everything on building out infrastructure with banks and already existing g partners that have very little reason to change the game. So thing will change, but barring a full collapse of the dollar…. There is no way any crypto is taking over payments in major counties in my life.
On the contrary, BSV is a very asymmetrical trade. The downside is minimal, the upside is phenomenally more than any other crypto. The fact that the block chain itself works with already millions of transactions scaling on chain is insane. The crypto industry just likes to try brush it under the carpet. With such an insane asymmetrical trade, I'd suggest you switch your perspective.
Profile: checked BSV poster: confirmed I'd advise you to completely switch your perspective or you'll lose money (if you're invested in BSV that is). I like your choice of game though buddy, aoe2 is a great game and I play regularly.
Nakamoto wasn't low 5-10 years ago, though. Given enough time, it will reach a critical level. BSV has a NK of 1 and requires 250 confirmations on Kucoin, and BCH requires 15 confirmations on kraken. Even the Bitcoin developer is suggesting 12 blocks now due to the centralization. https://finbold.com/bitcoin-transactions-need-2-hours-to-be-safe-says-developer/ This will only get worse as the halving cut the subsidies for block security in half. Don’t wait to bail water until the boat is sinking.
it's possible for the BSV chain in particular to die if it does die, then it'd perforce stop being the Schelling point for those who want a functioning Bitcoin, so then it'd become rational to begin a new chain, in most cases by reviving the same UTXO set since the UTXO set is bounded you can't stop people from continuing the *idea* of Bitcoin, you can't kill an *idea*
it doesn't matter whether the BSV sats are valuable-- that's not the point their value is that they allow you to create contracts around things that have value fake "BTC" does this, it's true, but it intentionally limits the throughput of how much it'll do it to a trickle, which makes it practically useless you don't understand what the purpose of the system is & literally think its purpose is to give you money :/
> “It’s a real technology” Wow, that is so profound. > “it allows possibly contentious parties such as strangers to engage in automatically enforced contracts & creates a single consensus record of the relative timing of past events--- an actual useful service” Bitcoin does this on a more active, widely used chain that has both network effect and manages to actually retain value over time. > “BSV as in the satoshis may or may not end up being valuable depending on a very complex political & economic & technical struggle which hasn't even begun yet, really, except for this silly nonsense where you believe in a fake Bitcoin, this is nothing compared to the actual conflict” BSV has been constantly declining in value (over -99% against Bitcoin). The market has spoken and you refuse to listen. As for politics, you’ve got a fraudster that is the head of the snake that is your failed fork. Maybe focus on that before you try and shove BSV into any real world geopolitical issues. Economically, as previously stated, BSV has been heading downwards since inception. This will not stop. Technically, your broken chain has been losing hashrate since inception and is not even comparable to Bitcoins hashrate. Hashrate is a major indicator of network security, of which BSV continually declines in. BSV wants to enable coin confiscation, allowing anyone that has enough authority to collude with miners to quite literally steal coins from less privileged users. It’s an absolute failure in a technical regard too. > “the potential root value of satoshi isn't that they can be used as payment for transactions, that's secondary, the root value is that they can be used as locations to hang scripts, that they can be used to put something in the UTXO set prepared ready to enforce a specific program--- the value has to do w/ the actual thing the system does, so it matters whether it can actually do things” It doesn’t matter what they can or can’t do, if they can’t store value they’re utterly useless. Nobody is going to want to place economic energy into a chain that is losing value and has a constant decline in security to use any “specific program” that can be built upon a more widely recognised, more secure and valuable chain (Bitcoin). > “your narrative about being an "SoV" (what a ridiculous ugly cliquey jargon who are you trying to communicate to) started during the scaling wars when it became clear that the hack that a consortium of companies did on "BTC" made it utterly broken, that resulted in the necessity of creating another narrative about what Bitcoin is, an absurd useless niche narrative that appeals to almost no one obviously look around you” Bitcoin has the most hashrate (by magnitudes) of any PoW blockchain, making BSV look like a speck of dust in comparison. Bitcoin secures magnitudes more value on the chain, more so than any other cryptocurrency, let alone something as worthless as BSV. Look around you, Bitcoin is being used not only for something it does well (SoV), but something that is a *crucial* stage in going on to be used for even more cases, when they make economic sense. It makes 0 economic sense to use BSV for quite literally anything.
,,,,,,,.......... every other bullshit project that doesn't fucking do anything, wtf are you fucking doing, no Bitcoin doesn't have to continually go up in value in order to survive, it needs a large number of *transactions* ,,, to *some* extent that increases the value of the BSV if that's the medium of the transactions b/c it *should* b/c being used to actually *do* something actually *is having value* , , , , but it really doesn't have to increase very much b/c a BSV based economy can be *extremely* high velocity this was all very clear in 2013 when i started using this technology, nobody was talking about just mindlessly making the prices of anything go up, people were talking about increasing the velocity & figuring out things to do w/ it to create actual value, b/c that makes sense!! if we had been trying to invite a bunch of people to join a thing that was just about making numbers go up it would ,,,, it would be as empty & lonely & pointless & incestuous as this bizarre little "crypto" community is, wtffffffffff :(
BSV has a purpose, it's a real technology it allows possibly contentious parties such as strangers to engage in automatically enforced contracts & creates a single consensus record of the relative timing of past events--- an actual useful service BSV as in the satoshis *may or may not* end up being valuable depending on a very complex political & economic & technical struggle which hasn't even begun yet, really, except for this silly nonsense where you believe in a fake Bitcoin, this is nothing compared to the actual conflict the potential root value of satoshi isn't that they can be used as payment for transactions, that's secondary, the root value is that they can be used as locations to hang scripts, that they can be used to put something in the UTXO set prepared ready to enforce a specific program--- the value has to do w/ the actual thing the system does, so it matters whether it can actually do things your narrative about being an "SoV" (what a ridiculous ugly cliquey jargon who are you trying to communicate to) started during the scaling wars when it became clear that the hack that a consortium of companies did on "BTC" made it utterly broken, that resulted in the necessity of creating another narrative about what Bitcoin is, an absurd useless niche narrative that appeals to almost no one obviously look around you Bitcoin was succeeding in the early 2010s when it was Bitcoin, & Bitcoin will succeed again once people notice that it's not the toy you confused people are playing w/
Don’t project your lack of understanding unto me, I have not said anything along the lines of “Bitcoin to the moon! Wooo give me that USD” I’ve stated that I want a reliable store of value, though at this point I’m unsure whether you understand what a SoV even is and why it is important to be a good SoV to even contemplate being used as a MoE in the real world. Let’s boil it down, is BSV a good store of value? No. Then the question to you becomes, if BSV fails at being a SoV how does it intend to ever become used as a MoE? I feel like I can already predict your nonsense rambling of a reply will be something lacking critical thinking like “well it work good so people will use”.
It’s just goes in one ear and out the other, doesn’t it? I have never used BSV as a store of value, it utterly failed at that. Bitcoin is up 817% over 5 years, BSV is -45% over the same time. You do understand this means that your store of value has lost 99.8% of its value against my store of value over the last 5 years, going off current USD price, right? The fact it has failed so miserably at that means it will never function as a real world medium of exchange. > “You don’t even know what this technology is designed to do” Lmao. My guy, I know exactly what it’s designed to do and it has completely failed at it. I’m afraid you’re completely entranced by the ability to transact with a low fee so much so that you’ve disregarded absolutely every aspect of what makes a good form of money. Downloading a wallet, transferring value into a dying fork and sending myself money will do absolutely nothing to change the reality that it does not work as money. FYI, I have transferred BSV, straight from the fork into an exchange to swap it for Bitcoin.
so like you don't even know what this technology is designed to do, & you've never tried it at all, but also you're super opinionated about it i can't switch to the fake "BTC" for the things i do on BSV b/c i do actual things w/ it & "BTC" is (intentionally, pathetically) broken
The free market has decided BSV is a failed fork of Bitcoin. You can easily see this yourself on the BTC/BSV chart. BSV has broken game theory surrounding it, nobody wants to use it as a store of value when it does nothing aside from decimate that value. It isn’t capable of becoming a global currency because it can’t even accomplish the first stage of that transition, which is becoming a widely accepted store of value. BSV isn’t even a competent SoV, let alone a successful SoV. So no, I haven’t used BSV for the use case of SoV, and I’m glad I haven’t because if I did I would be down -94% over the last 5 years.
that's a fake Bitcoin,, the only real Bitcoin is BSV,, they decided to have transaction fee problems on that fake Bitcoin *on purpose* in order to try to get money by forcing people onto sidechain systems under their control, that *was the whole idea* so of course they're not upset that it's broke, they broke it on purpose for money,,, every other chain here also rose up from that catastrophe saying "ooh look at us, we have *cheaper fees than Bitcoin* and we're *way faster*!" which was possible only b/c the people running "Bitcoin" decided to make a "Bitcoin" that intentionally charges a bunch & goes slow, "for security" but really so they can get money from it,,,,,,, real Bitcoin, BSV, has always been incredibly cheap & still is now, it'll be cheap even if everyone on Earth uses it b/c it's not *intentionally restricted* by a bunch of *greedy assholes*
everyone here is very confused "BSV" "Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision" is what normal Bitcoin is called now, it still has incredibly low fees, which ofc was part of the point, how's it going to compete w/ existing payment methods if it doesn't beat their fees the rest of these "cryptocurrencies" came from a confusion where people thought that BSV couldn't do scripts (what really happened was that a development team that hijacked it for a while decided they thought it was more secure to not let it run any scripts🙄), so then everyone thought they were so clever for inventing something mildly less broken than that intentionally broken thing, so then when Craig Wright came back & explained how pointless everything they'd done was they decided to smear him rather than admit how ridiculous they were being🤦♀️
The point is to cut out the middle man because the middleman adopted the role of gatekeeper, regulating what people are allowed to buy or to sell - political censorship and moral censorship Bitcoin does this Litecoin also does this, slightly differently As the dominant, Bitcoin usage (mostly misuse) caused it to bump up against its daily volume limit Litecoin is a useful alternative, while Bitcoin is overloaded Monero is as useful as Bitcoin, with extra privacy BCash is an opportunist coin minting. By inheriting Bitcoin's history, it created value from nothing, fraudulently. BTG, BSV and about 40 others are similarly fraudulent, for inheriting existing coin history ETH is a mistake. A clever person noted that Bitcoin's scripting design does not do loops (more correct, does not do backward jumps). Naively, clever person thinks this is a deficiency. ETH is the sad result Everything else is an extension of the parasitic speculator market which adopted Bitcoin in about 2011. Finding a market which offers scam trading equivalent to the old Belfort penny stock pump-and-dump markets, the penny stock scammers made a speculative market from Bitcoin. Then they extended it to new coins - either blockchains, or ETH instant tokens > I see AI as the future Isn't faith belief so quaint
the only real technology here is BSV ,,, there's a lot of things you can do w/ BSV, though it suffers from metcalfe's law & you'll be alone doing most of them while the few users run around after w/e newest tech they thought of like middle school kids playing soccer huddling around the ball ,,,,,,,,,, but that's a thousand times better than the rest of this crap, BSV has invented & explored so many cool things & it's always changing the rest of these chains were literally just made b/c they suppressed bitcoinxt & made it so you couldn't do anything on bitcoin & so then people started trying to make w/e random chain b/c hell, better than *nothing* ,,, so that made sense at the time & yet also they're very likely to all collapse back into BSV once people realize that it works fine, like, no offense to any of them, just, the *reason* to do anything on any other chain was that BSV was hijacked & broken, so w/o that reason there just isn't enough motive to keep chains apart i mean other than people's motives of wanting to believe that other things are real, but *on the whole* they'll need to be spending rather than saving money to create the illusion of workable chains, & they're all ultimately fantasies rather than functional economic systems sorry there's still lots of cool interesting stuff you can do, you just have to do it *on BSV*, there's easily enough room on BSV for everyone's ideas, all of the actual ideas will be transformed into programs on BSV & they'll start to actually work efficiently & work together & it'll be great ,,, it'll be all of the things that people here *said they wanted* ,,, just uh w/o them getting paid & w/ craig wright having been right & not them, so they're only going to be furious about it, since they only wanted the money & didn't want the tech
the "Bitcoin" you own is a fake "Bitcoin" that was produced during the scaling wars in the teens ,, some companies intentionally broke it, limiting both the number & types of transactions, trying to force people to use their sidechains & shit Ethereum seemed like maybe it made sense then, since "Bitcoin" had been forced to be unable to run scripts (real Bitcoin, BSV, can run any script), but it was just designed by some kid vaguely trying to imitate craig & they got serious things wrong, Ethereum's account model doesn't scale since Bitcoin had been silenced by intensely censoring its community, & Ethereum very loudly failed most publicly w/ cryptokitties, there was both a sense that there was an opportunity for alternative chains to give it a try, & a sense in the general population that this "cryptocurrency" must not actually be a very effective technology so Solana is part of a wave of utter shitcoins that were invented mostly to target marks rather than w/ any serious idea of transforming society sorry
you heard it here first, apparently only BSV is Bitcoin "BTC" is not Bitcoin that's why it *doesn't do anything*, that ought to be a clue if you're brave enough to try BSV, you'll find out--- not *buy* it, *try* it, like how at the beginning of the internet the thing to do was to *use* the internet to *do* stuff not just to invest in internet somehow