Look at the bigger picture. BCH community will win. When one finally adds replay protection we will have 1 of each. Both of these are better than BTC, ETH, or LTC.Both will survive. $$
BSV won't survive. It's an attack coin, a killer chain. It was created to conquer an existing coin and as such didn't have any support from any legit exchange.
BSV will thrive. It is the closest to the original Satoshi vision. It was created to defend against contentious protocol changes that will prevent massive adoption.
Just curiious. "When have investors flocked to "Because it is the closest to Satoshi Vision"? It's about Cheap, fast, and reliable and adoption. I think Faketoshi is going bye bye.
Fiat is only fast in person. I can't buy stuff off purseIO with fiat. I can't feed the chickens with fiat. I can't send fiat fast to a person in another country. Get it now?
PurseIO is Amazon, feeding chicken is useless, and banks will solve that last problem in less than 10years (Bitcoin won't be adopted in less than 10years) Bitcoin is for small usecase
Yes Amazon with 30% off, Feeding chickens is an example, and I disagree with banks will "Solve that problem" in less than 10 years. Is it a problem for banks? GOOD.
IPv6 would get mass adoption if people destroyed the internet and started over. They should have done that in 2000. Missed opportunity. Let's not miss this one to get the real Bitcoin.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1340,you can find a lot of RFCs in this site, it depends on the definition of "major upgrade", I think BCH is doing what it should to do, for scaling.
I don't see one major update there at all. Just a link salad. I give you a much simpler counter example. The Netscape browser on my ancient 2002 laptop still shows many websites.
If you think https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791 defines IPV4, and that's the base of the internet not including any of the extension/ high level protocols, I am not arguing with you.
POS is not ready, POW is still the best way to achieve decentralized consensus. BCH will never refuse technologies which can make it better. Scaling is the most important thing.
If you take a look on every success technology achievement, no technology lock themself. IP protocol upgrade rarely because it relate to hardware. Incompatible change cause greate lose
bitcoin runs totally based on software, except the asic miner. upgrade is an easy thing, just change or add a few lines of code will not cause someone lose money.
This is part of "Blockstream's Vision" propaganda that is inconsistent. Prof Faustus claims the Bitcoin script is Turing complete which includes gambling - not that it matters anyway.
One of the problems that Mastercard never had/will have is introducing gambling codes like SPV into the protocol. Imagine being known as Mastercard, "card for the gamblers"
Yes, you are talking about code changes, that's fine, for optimization, bug fixing. The other word is "protocol changes" these would radically change the incentives of the coin.
On it's own I think it will. But it does have an uphill battle starting from scratch. No way it survives with this hash battle bullshit. I personally would use both being seperate.
How would the market react if ABC attacked BSV or any other coin? The market and exchanges should penalize BSV to lower the chance for such attacks in the future.
The market would react the same way it just did. A big dump. It would also depend on how long CSW has control of SV. Whether bigger miners come in or not. They may just deem it toxic
Bigger miners? BSV is mining at a great loss, you won't see any other miner for a long times, maybe a year, maybe never. A honest miner mines for gains made by the coin, not from
The "market" poisoned the Bitcoin Cash wallets (with incompatible opcode) and making fake "futures" for a coin that didn't exist. I have no idea how the SEC will look at that.
Maybe not, also to consider BCH changed the difficulty algo, so really the "royal blood" was already contaminated. So BTC could always claim that neither BCH nor BSV have it.
I'm not a shill, but I am curious to talk to a person who thinks BTC is not broken. Lighting network is a piece of shit, Segwit took signatures out of the chain of signatures
0 Conf doesn't work, and the core people really think they can scale globally with a 1mb block size. Honestly I want to know, what part of this cluster fuck do you see as valuable?
BTC segwit breaks the model, it's no longer bitcoin. It's junk. I would love to have a real debate about this. There is no way BTC can claim it's best. It's just using the brand.
I think btc is broken too, but somehow LN might work or BTC might become a store of value like gold (and be usefull for some usecase, like Komodo DPoW) Id love to see a real debate too