BSV is a project almost entirely propped up by a billionaire gambling tycoon named Calvin Ayre who is promoting a known con-artist named Craig Wright [3] as the inventor of Bitcoin. They promote BitcoinSV, which came into existence last November as the "One True Bitcoin". They are invested in massive astro-turfing for publicity and to lend themselves perceived legitimacy.
[1] https://twitter.com/_unwriter/status/1143599992667590656
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/c5eg27/its_t...
The rhetoric used to promote Bitcoin SV is very similar to that used to promote Bitcoin Cash, but it also adds a lot of anti-cypherpunk arguments like anonymity being criminal, censorship being in line with the original purpose of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin being meant to operate under the centralized control of governments:
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/drugs-fraud-and-murder-ddf12...
All of the founding documents of Bitcoin directly refute these fraudulent claims.
Nobody uses BTC seriously besides criminals and hobbyists. You can't blame them for making a more efficient version of the same system.
But don't masquerade as Bitcoin and intentionally confuse people. That's not cool.
And if you build new things on top of this foundation, and you also intentionally conflate the names with an intent to deceive people, then you certainly don't have my best interests in mind.
I'll stay far away from this project.
BTC is just one version of the BitCoin experiment.
Aside from the lack of infrastructure, in BTC they already abandon the miner, The money that should be Goes to Miner for securing the chain, it goes to the Lightning Network Node.
When block reward diminished it'll fked up, they cannot survive with such low income from LN.
BSV is the pure capitalist, maximalist version of the BitCoin experiment. If they're correct and it works, things are going to get very interesting soon.
BitcoinSV has much bigger blocks than Bitcoin, which is probably why this idea is possible.
While the same idea could be applied for the original Bitcoin network, that is far more popular, it would be highly impractical as blocks are smaller and transaction costs are higher.
I don't want to start another big/small blocks debate but if this idea gets popular, I doubt there will be many nodes that want to host the insane amount of data that will be accumulated, and the incentives for hosting a full node cost-effectively is the main reason why Bitcoin blocks are small.
I also sense a malicious intention with the website not making any reference to the fact that this is not the BTC network that 99.9% of visitors associate with the word Bitcoin.