It is simply the original bitcoin protocol, ie. with all the stupid things that were added to "BTC" since 2009 removed.
... that makes it infinitely scalable and useful like bitcoin was supposed to be, not just for money, for data storage, and for computation.
No Segwit No RBF No block size limit No limits on scripts or data sizes
BTC is useless in comparison... and the 'ad hominem' will only cover this up for so long.
Bitcoin SV clearly introduced many changes. But those changes are backward-incompatible for Bitcoin nodes, meaning that every one of them will reject an SV block.
It really doesn't matter what you think about the wisdom of what was added since 2009. All that matters is that Bitcoin nodes will ignore the blocks.
Experimentation is all well and good. But fringe groups breaking the protocol willy-nilly then claiming the result as Bitcoin is misleading at best.
That's what I was pointing out. It's a tactic used repeatedly by SV advocates including Wright. His involvement is relevant given the extraordinary nature of his claims and the deliberately misleading nature of his proof.
> No Segwit No RBF No block size limit No limits on scripts or data sizes
Scaling is so very easy when users are scarce.
> Someone created a block chain and network for mass data storage.
I don't like the phrase of storing data on the chain. The blockchain is not a storage medium but a network that incentivised connectivity and data propagation.
It's not just GUI but also a miner policy which can break the use of BTC as cash - as it was originally intended.
> And why does adding Segwit make it "not bitcoin anymore"?
It's an ugly addition to the original protocol that among others breaks the definition of a coin as a chain of digital signatures. This might lead to legal issues as some people (including lawyers) pointed out.
> Did you know that you can upload files directly to the Bitcoin network, as permanent, immutable, and monetizable Bitcoin transactions?
I'm not saying that Bitcoin has become good or bad; I'm saying it's Bitcoin. BSV folks spend a lot of time and bytes trying to convince others that they're the real deal, and that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. It doesn't matter. If BSV is superior to Bitcoin, it should prevail through its own merit, not through language gymnastics in online forums.
Agree 100%. That's why the focus is on utility, and will keep delivering until it's obvious.
There is a pre-2013 patch version of the bitcoin protocol too. People play around with it for kicks, because the exploits are already known. Maybe some exchange trades it.
This is just called an old version, due to consensus.
Ideology is just a distraction.
If I have a file so hot that I cant even store it on Mega or a free decentralized storage file system
Then I know that BitcoinSV is a public dumping ground I can use
Amusing really, because the "SV" stands for Satoshi's vision. The founder, Craig Wright has been bamboozling people for a long time with his nonsense.
It's so long ago that most have forgotten, but the real Satoshi weighed in on a pretty heated argument about whether the Bitcoin block chain should be used to store DNS records. Satoshi was against it due to scaling concerns.
The project went on to create its own network and blockchain called Namecoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg289...
I would take this project in the same spirit. Someone created a block chain and network for mass data storage. At least that's the goal. The result is what you see, but it's not Bitcoin.