Bitcoin Forum

Now I know its a highly controversial topic, it's been discussed up and down but honestly, best content so far I could find when using the search function are posts dating back to the time of Mike Hearns etc.

I fully disclose that I am on the side of team "increase the block size", at least to 4MB for now but what is it that opponents worry so much?
It is absolute clear that all the arguments against increasing the blocksize are not justified, at least not anymore considering the current miner landscape.
Lightning is not the solution. Not for me!

So what is in the way of going there? most miners would support the change.

Aware that with 4MB, we would reach the limit again, but at least for now, BTC would be back to be what it was

Then talking of which, why not reduce block time to ~5 minutes while we are at it? Whats the exact trade-off between 5 and 10 minutes?

Not sure if this is trolling or not because surely you can search for this.

1. Blocks aren't actually being filled. I've just looked at the last 8 and they range from 0.8 to 0.95 mb... Plenty of room for extra transactions.

If you want lower fees and faster confs, I'd recommend litecoin (for exchange to exchange transit and sending funds to yourself).

Decreasing the 10 minutes to 5 would make the chain less secure and may incur more orphaning. People will then probably want 12 confirms instead of 6 anyway it makes it more likely we'll have empty blocks and have the readjust all of the fee structures too. People are going to lose hope if they're not getting the full reward (especially solominers).

What is it you're using bitcoin for?

Arguments against block size increase are based on decentralization[1] and alternatives such as Segwit, which will reduce transaction size instead of block size (which will be able to achieve the same result without increasing centralization)

[1] as satoshi said


If you don't care about decentralization, as you think it does not justify a reduced block size, you have two alternatives:
Use BCH  or Visa. I think Vista is much better lol

Visa can do 24.000 tps, while BCH is centralized and do only 60.

https://cdn.howmuch.net/articles/crypto-transactions-compared-ce3b.jpg

??? Is this a joke I'm not getting? The block size limit was increased to 4MB over two years ago with the SegWit upgrade. Sure, it was controversial at the time, but we finally put the naysayers in their place.

There are lot of arguments against increasing the block size but I think the most convincing one is distribution of consensus rules enforcement. I, for one, don't think would be able to keep verifying on at least one of my wallets with (full) big blocks :/. With the current block chain size increase, some even milit for smaller blocks.

There has already been a block size increase (segwit).

Why bringing that topic now ? Raising the limit now would have no effect as blocks are not full... It's been long time since I did a transaction with higher fees than 1sat/vbyte.

I think another concern we should have as of next halving is miner reward, and bigger blocks is arguably deserve them.

By what arguments aren't you convinced ? Or, better, what are arguments for increasing the block size ?

Could you explain why ?


Why ?

What was it ? (According to your terms, apparently an exchange ticker...)


More probability (theoritically) to have orphan blocks and reorgs. Block chain size increase (if enough transactions).

Another thing to think about is that even before discussing a consensus change, is to take into account the cost of this change. In other words the arguments for the change should outweight the (high) cost of a hard fork.

EDIT: And there is absolutely no need for this...

No it has not. There's too much legacy data in a transaction to have Weight Unit == Byte. 1.5/2 MB is more accurate as of now.

The only sensible answer is "wait and see".  If users begin running code that would permit blocks which are larger than currently allowed, something might change.  If users continue to run code that would reject larger blocks, it won't.  

But what you should always try to remember is this:  All these people out there running code are doing so to enforce their preferences, not yours.  I can't speak for everyone out there, but I have a sneaking suspicion they don't feel any pressure to increase their burden simply in order to reduce yours.  And this is absolutely what you are asking of them when you insist they should store and circulate these larger blocks for you.

Increased transaction throughput is possible (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561) but it will require some thought and effort that an average Joe is unwilling and unable to offer. For the long tail part of the population the current bitcoin block size plus altcoin block sizes seem to be just enough.

Is there evidence to support this?

Transactions I sent using native segwit as a 1 in 1 out still are around 140 bytes, legacy was about 255... Its nice but its not quite 4x? (unless I'm looking at the wrong part of the transaction)?

No you are right it's not, the formula to calculate block limit changed. The old was
The new one (after Segwit activation) is
With 1 legacy byte == 4 weight units and 1 "segwit data" byte == 1 weight unit.
Cf BIP141 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#block-size)

If it doesn't solve anything, why are there nearly 35000 Bitcoin LN channels at the time of writing?  You think people are doing it for shits and giggles?  It means a far greater volume of transactions can be processed without sacrificing decentralisation.  Some would call that an impressive achievement.

One of the best features is the privacy it gives.  Unless you are involved in a transaction, you have no way of knowing how much is being transacted.  There are statistics for just about everything in crypto; a veritable feast of numbers to crunch, but there are no stats for the total sum transacted over LN.  Only the total capacity, which isn't the same thing.  You'd already know this if you put as much effort into understanding it as you do trying to write it off.  The genie isn't going back in the bottle, so it would behove you not to fight it.  Unless you have a better solution (and some code to go along with it), your time would be far better spent learning, rather than arguing.



I already did.  

Exactly.  We can't stop other chains focusing on their on-chain "scaling" ideas with much larger blocks, so we don't try to.  We leave them to do their own thing, even if we don't agree with it.  Yet, for some reason, they think they can come to us and tell us not to do what we're doing?  Bit of a double standard, isn't it?



It sounds like he's full of hot air and doesn't even understand how the development process works.  New code gets reviewed by everyone.  It's not going to be some shady behind-the-scenes deal between hardwalletattacker1, one single dev and some mining pools.  I'm sure he thinks it's all going to unfold as his vivid imagination paints it, but reality is going to hit hard sooner or later.



FTFY. 

Opine it all you like, doesn't change what I said earlier (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5202006.msg53093614#msg53093614).  Don't get me wrong, I can sympathise with your perspective.  I spent years campaigning for larger blocks because I thought it was the right course of action at the time.  But I've come to realise that Bitcoin isn't about what I think is best, particularly if I'm expecting other users to bear the costs. 

If those securing the chain choose freely to increase the blocksize and it suddenly helps onboard millions of users around the world, resulting in mass adoption (and I'm not even remotely convinced a blocksize increase alone can do that), then you can call it a fact.  Until then, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.

Exactly. With the introduction of SegWit, the block size has been changed to something called the "block weight" increasing the limit to 4MB per block. It may not seem like much in this highly-demanding world, but the best way to go nowadays. After all, blocks within the BTC blockchain aren't filled in their entirety. One way or another, Bitcoin will need to increase its block weight to higher limits as people within the mainstream world adopt the cryptocurrency at a large scale. The Lightning Network, although quite a promising technology, it's not an all-in-one solution for scalability. It largely depends on Bitcoin's main blockchain network to succeed. This is true, because the LN performs operations on-chain for opening/closing channels. Too many operations of the LN would bloat the BTC blockchain as we know it.

Nonetheless, we shouldn't worry much about BTC's block size at least for the time being. With many alternatives to the main BTC blockchain with bigger block sizes (like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV), there's a coin for everyone. Believe it or not, Bitcoin has already scaled to the world with several implementations of its blockchain network. The Bitcoin SV cryptocurrency would deliver an unlimited block size capacity allowing limitless scalability for the foreseeable future. Of course, this greatly increases the risk of centralization, but most people don't seem to care about it. Just my thoughts ;D

Neither will bch, which is Roger Ver's blockchain.
The only truly Decentralized blockchain for now is Bitcoin. Bch is just a quick rich scheme.

i find it very weird that in the context of scaling and TPS, an altcoin like bcash is even mentioned. apart from the obvious centralization of it, there are lots of altcoins that have much higher TPS in comparison. bcash barely has 0.1-0.2 TPS which happens to be twenty times less than TPS of the joke coin called Dogecoin let alone TPS of bitcoin!

Do not knock Doge coin it is very good to move value  quickly and cheaply.  

One incentive to make BTC stay the same  way  is

 Alt coins  can thrive as movement of  value containers while BTC acts like a roadway to support  all the alts.



Read my signature.

I have always disagreed with your signature phill , sorry I have been wanting to confess but never had the chance  :'( :'( :'(

I like the description you use, but not the way you structure it , if I had to use the same thing , i would call Blockchain a highway , and every coin including Bitcoin trucks needed to move transactions/value.

Now it's up to the user to chose how would they want to transfer their funds ,  do you want to use an armored truck guarded by a dozen security guards but apparently slow in it's nature form like Bitcoin , or send your money in an exposed motorcycle ignoring every aspect and focusing only on speed like BSV or any other "let's make huge blocks" coins ?

so you have to chose , do you want fast ? or secured ? you can't have both , but what if someone told you that , there might be a way to actually move that heavy armored truck a lot faster (LN/Segwit and whatever might come in the future).

I am not blindly taking sides here, I just don't understand why would anyone blindly ask for larger blocks when we have not utilized a fraction of other solutions, the other day a BSV supporter was bragging about a 500MB block (was most likely full of unnecessary information that has nothing to do with transacting value) , how many people do you know that have an internet bandwidth that can actually propagate a block that huge? man I pay a fortune for a 2mb connection where I live, and I have limited quota , running a Bitcoin full node costs me a lot with block size on disk =< 1MB , imagine it was 4MB or 64MB , let alone unlimited blocksize , I just can't figure out the amount of weed I need to smoke to get remotely close to accepting these brainless thoughts of going full blast on blocksize.

Exactly. Bitcoin Cash may have greater scalability than Bitcoin, and most old altcoins like Dogecoin and Litecoin. But, its low transaction activity shows us that people really don't care about the technical aspects of the underlying cryptocurrency's Blockchain network. It's impressive to see a joke cryptocurrency like Dogecoin without any improvements in scalability whatsoever, being superior than Bitcoin Cash in terms of transaction activity. Which means, that people are on the hunt for tried-and-tested coins that actually provide real use cases (and value) to the mainstream world, than just hype. In Bitcoin Cash's early days, everything was full of excitement leading prices per coin at $4k across the market by 2020. But right after many people discovered the centralization risks of huge block sizes with Bitcoin Cash's inception back in 2017, we've seen a decline of interest over the past months.

Bitcoin Cash's hash wars in 2018, greatly diminished the cryptocurrency's reputation within the mainstream world. Given the events of Bitcoin Cash's huge block size, I doubt that Bitcoin will increase its block size anytime soon. While SegWit has increased the "block size" (now called "block weight") to 4MB, the Lightning Network takes care of the rest by providing instant transactions with low fees without the need for enormous block sizes (unlike both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV) which prove to centralize the entire Blockchain network.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin's SegWit + Lightning Network may be all it needs to scale for the foreseeable future. Increasing the block size is not a priority at the moment, as Layer-Two solutions alleviate the situation for a pretty long time. Until the Lightning Network becomes "clogged up", developers of the main Bitcoin blockchain won't be increasing its block size anytime soon. Just my opinion :)

It's impressive only if you see Dogecoin as a joke coin and BCash as something so great.

Dogecoin is old. Since it's so cheap it can be used for learning or tests. Very important: it's accepted in most exchanges (most probably in more exchanges as BCash). Some still use Dogecoin move their funds out of small exchanges where they've sold coins you may have never heard of (I've done that too when where trying out mining on certain new coins). Also most probably an exchange will have very low withdrawal fee for Dogecoin. So yes, Dogecoin has its use cases.

The comparison with Bcash doesn't have a chance. BCash is a new altcoin coming into an area many other altcoins do this job wonderfully. When I have transfers to make quick and for some reasons I have troubles with the fees (usually the withdrawal fees from exchanges), the top options are Ripple (!), Doge, Litecoin, ...

This could give a better image on the reasons why transaction activity is not as you'd expect.
And this could be a reason why Bitcoin Devs don't think that bigger block size need attention and that the bigger blocks would bring without coming with other problems all the benefits some are boasting.

See, Doge has more supply, more liquidity, more market pairs, in more exchanges. It also has faster block times. BCash is probably the joke here, not Doge. To be fair, the BCash and BSV are good testing grounds for their large blocks, storing all sorts of junk in them. If someone uploads wikipedia to the blockchain, maybe they will stop asking for donations. And it will be there forever.

it could have been a good testing ground if there were some constant actual usage in their blockchain that could generate some traffic for at least a month.
otherwise so far we have seen some short periods where they artificially spammed their network to spike up the tx count that couldn't prove anything.
the funny thing is even though bitcoin has technically "smaller max block size", its blockchain is currently 109 GB bigger than BCH blockchain :D

Likewise for scammer-version, in spite of all their crowing about hundreds of megabyte blocks, constant spamming with weather data transactions, and bcashers crying about services that had to shut down because the cost of a bsv node was too great, their chain is a about 30% smaller than Bitcoin's.

I believe Dogecoin has more real actual transactions from real actual users per month than Bitcoin Cash and the SV version.

Dogecoin has a much stabler price with a lot lower fee and is accepted in almost every exchange. not to mention that it is decentralized and immutable unlike BCH and BSV that easily roll back and do whatever they want since they fully control these altcoins.

People still don't know bitcoin increased block size?

Size: 2.2 MB https://www.smartbit.com.au/block/540107

Now sitting at record high averages near ~1.2 MB https://bitcoinvisuals.com/chain-block-size

Limiting blocksize/time is a security feature above all else to address bandwidth and validation costs, with additional benefit that space scarcity drives fees that are meant to replace block reward eventually.

Block time change, by the way, would be a soft fork too (depends on definition).

Many exchanges finally batching as well which allows more throughput for others.

The next Schnorr, MAST, Taproot soft fork will reduce tx size as well allowing more throughput.

Various other current proposed BIP that can help deal with higher throughput:


Regardless, on-chain methods increase scaling linearly while off-chain offer orders of magnitude bigger scaling w/o compromising security of base layer. Even trust minimized solutions like rollups could technically be used as well, if not for bitcoin, then for token layers on embedded consensus and take them off chain.

Well, Bitcoin Cash may have a bigger block size than Bitcoin, but it's heavily centralized today. No one would want to transact using Bitcoin Cash over Bitcoin or even Dogecoin, because of this reason. Dogecoin, although being an old cryptocurrency, has managed to gain acceptance within the mainstream world because it retains decentralization while providing cheaper fees and faster transaction confirmation times. What once started as a "joke", ended as a serious cryptocurrency for traders and investors alike. Bitcoin Cash still has a block time of 10 minutes, which is makes it terrible for micropayments. Of course, with a bigger block size, fees will be able to remain low. But transaction speed is the same as Bitcoin with a 10 minute delay per block. If Bitcoin Cash wants to obtain greater usage than Dogecoin, it needs to lower its block time and become a decentralized cryptocurrency for people to use massively within the mainstream world. Otherwise, I don't see any future for it.

In the case of Bitcoin, a block size increase is not necessary right now. With the adoption of SegWit, Bitcoin changed its block size (now block weight) from 1 MB to 4 MB. This, alongside the Lightning Network, would be everything Bitcoin needs to scale for the mainstream world. In case Bitcoin's Layer-2 solution (LN) becomes bloated, a quick increase from 4 MB to 8 MB will do the trick. It's important to increase the block size (or in this case, block weight) in smaller increments to maintain the decentralization of Bitcoin as much as possible. Extremely huge block sizes like it's the case with Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV, would greatly undermine the purpose Blockchain technology was created for (which is the decentralization of money).

Time will tell us what Bitcoin's developers will do in order to maintain Bitcoin scalable for the world. As long as everything is done with decentralization in mind, Bitcoin will succeed for a long time. Otherwise, you could expect its demise within the mainstream world. Just my opinion :)

i wouldn't be so sure about that. only unlimited block size can keep the fees low. anything that has a cap will end up with a fee market eventually.
besides with BCH there are other problems too. for example what people sometimes forget is that BCH is the exact copy of bitcoin and the clients are the exact copy of bitcoin core and due to the incompetency of BCH developers they haven't been able to really create a client that works for that kind of block size. you would think that empty blocks and having such a huge cap wouldn't lead to fee competitions but you would be wrong. not to mention that miners don't even support the big block size after 2 years! and they will continue mining 1 MB blocks even if there were more transactions in the mempool. it is not noticeable because BCH block sizes currently are about 0.05-0.2 MB.

here is an interesting observation i had a while ago where a short term (1 hour) spam attack of transactions with 1 s/b fee forces users to start paying 2 s/b:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.msg52337255#msg52337255

With 2-of-2 multisig address where both merchant and customer park the same amount fast block time isn't necessary, even 24 hours blocks will work just fine.

faster blocks just means they are easier to revert, and likely there will be competing blocks doing it accidentally given a small window to propagate the new block.

no matter the block time, what counts is accumulated work on top of the block for the cost backing its finality

I think a 1mb block size is the best we can have now.

Large enough to handle over half a million transactions every day.
Even a million or more with some batching and optimization.

But yet small enough to be able to fully sync the blockchain in 1-3 days.
And fast enough to run over Tor, which might be needed if governments start to crack down on it.

What is a 1000 GigaMeg good for if that means bitcoin will be censored in many places?

Or what about "will Bitcoin EVER have a smaller block size to improve the initial blockchain download/network latency, and increase the amount of full-archival nodes in the network?"

future changes can not change the past. even if block size is reduced to zero you still have to download the entire ~200 GB blockchain history to be considered a "full node".

Mere musing by me. For the longevity of the network, I believe the "issue" might be discussed/considered in Bitcoin's near future.

BCH is not more 'centralized' ( what's the exact definition here, and what measures follows from such?)

Original BitCoin can already do a lot more than ripple , u just need to investigate it in its form/implementation of BSV.

Your views on what Bitcoin "is" or "isn't" are totally irrelevant.  We have a consensus mechanism to do that.  It appears to disagree with you.

Give them some space for what their network/protocol should be, or shouldn't be. I believe the Bitcoin community should have no problem with it. BUT they should also stop trolling everyone by calling their coin "the real/original Bitcoin".

Fast block time is usually achieved at the cost of security due to high orphaning risk, so that's no solution either. I wouldn't say that cryptocurrencies are terrible for micropayments, but instead that on-chain transactions are terrible for micropayments.


Sure, but reducing block size would still improve initial sync time vs. doing nothing at all. It will mitigate the damage we're currently doing.

Plus it would protect the longevity of the network by letting it scale out with more full-archival nodes than less. More full-archival nodes, more decentralization. More decentralization, more security.

The troll is holding on to the narrative that Bitcoin will replace Visa. I believe that it was a mistake done by old Bitcoin evangelists by promoting Bitcoin as a "fast, anonymous, digital cash that you can send peer to peer for free".

And if that's what people want, they should definitely use that coin.  But it's not what I signed up for, so I won't be doing that.  



It's always "someone" with you.  Why can't you be grateful for what you have, instead of constantly asking other people to do more for you?  If you want it to happen, how about you do it?  But again, don't just expect people to join in.  They'll either join of their own volition, or they won't.

Here's what you don't seem to grasp.  People discovered Bitcoin, they liked the idea, so they started using it.  Then you come along thinking you can change the idea to something many of those users would deem absolutely abysmal AND you want someone else to make these terrible changes for you!  What planet are you even from if you think that's gonna fly?

Really, I don't get this why do you want such ridiculous changes in Bitcoin's protocol? Go get an alt that can simply do the job for you if you are ^not so satisfied^ with what Satoshi has done (and the rest of the developers are doing) to keep the project alive and running. If you want bigger block size in BTC, instead go for XRP, LTC or DOGE to get your transactions confirmed quicker. Why do you need a change in something when the whole consensus is against you? Stop being the "Albert Einstein" of Bitcoin.

Trust me, you shouldn't fight for the block size, but about settling more transactions in the blocks that either go empty or are left with some space.

Or go fork Bitcoin, call it the real "Bitcoin", and be satisfied in what you achieve from it. But they did it, and day by day, the forked-community are becoming more exposed that their forks are mere troll-jobs.

Always how u view it, from what perspective and what u are willing to pre define.

But we can finally agree that Bitcoin didn't start with a ticker symbol and has kinda separated into different approaches under different tickers and the rest of the world is way bigger than any of the each supporting 'communities'.

So the rest of the world will go eventually and decide what they want for the different use case and this will nothing have to do with tickers or speculation, rather with usability and capacity ( bigger block sizes)  bordlessness, costs / efficiency and compliance.


2020 will be very interesting, happy new year!

But technically, one branch, that holds the "BTC" ticker, is the backwards compatible and continues from the original, the other branch, that holds the "BCH" ticker, is not backwards compatible, and split away from the original.

cost to fully validate and store (for archiving) chain is constant growth. if chain become too big too quick, it will not be as decentralized as it should be, because cost to fully validate and store will be too expensive for average home user. look at what happens to ethereum, they must rely primarily to third parties for node. this is not a decentralized system in my view. bitcoin network thrive due to decentral aspect, capable by many who fully validate and run node

Simple problem is Bitcoin would need a hardfork.
And thats what I simply learned. Bitcoin will NEVER hardfork. Because they guys control the github will not allow to upload such a code.

And now you can think about decentralisation  ;)

That's not true.

You can hard fork bitcoin right now.

You just cannot make people follow your fork with force.

If there needs to be another upgrade which needs to be implemented by doing a hf, then you might have a point but it is still not impossible.

How often does one sync from zero anyway? You're talking about new installs or maybe new users. They know this, there is just no way around this.

People regularly download terabyte collections of 4k movies these days (or stream them), so current blockchain is not really a problem after it has already sync'd.

The second question is interesting though = Is there hope? Maybe the actual block size or weight could increase in the future, but right now plenty of 1 sat transactions are confirming so there's not much need yet.

The problem is the bandwidth (and CPU power). Not storage. Bitcoin is the result of sheer software engineering. If you read any book about any kind of engineering, it usually starts like this:

"Engineers always should design their product/project to withstand the worst possible condition there is."

The sentence wasn't always exactly like this probably but you get the idea.

Murphy's law say something similar to this too:


Always assume the worst so you'll never fail... and you can still fail regardless. These are the times you realize that you just can't beat your luck. That's when we say "Shit happens."

I have a feeling that any Bitcoin hard fork will result in two distinct networks. I don't think we'll see "clean" hard forks where the original network dies unless it's some sort of existential emergency bug fix.

Upgrading to allow quantum resistant signatures -- or lots of other features and optimizations -- can be done with a soft fork. Backward compatibility (no network split) is a good thing.

I'm curious what more technical folks think about Mark Friedenbach’s "forward blocks" idea (https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-breakthrough-tech-forward-blocks), where a future block size increase could be achieved with a soft fork.

Exactly. Basically, there's no need to increase Bitcoin's block size since there are other cryptocurrencies out there which are already scalable for the world. If you want faster transactions and cheaper fees, just go for other alternatives like the ones mentioned earlier. The fastest and cheapest Blockchains today are XRP and Stellar. They're quite ideal for day-to-day payments within the mainstream world. Since Bitcoin has been designed as a store of value from the start, it cannot be used effectively for quick transfers unlike other cryptocurrencies on the market today. Of course, we already have a second layer in the works (Lightning Network) with the aim of making Bitcoin suitable for micropayments worldwide.

This, coupled up with a block weight of 4 MB (thanks to the adoption of SegWit), should make Bitcoin scalable enough for most people within a couple of years from now. As long as decentralization is put first above all else, there should be nothing to worry about. I believe that Bitcoin forks such as Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV will fail in the long run as they'll become too centralized over time with their immense block sizes. As it's always said, "slow and steady wins the race". Bitcoin is already doing this by slowly implementing scalability solutions without sacrificing decentralization. Its counterparts (BCH and BSV) will be largely dominated by big players in the industry as the average person won't be able to support the blockchain as node costs rise over time.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin still has hope of becoming a widespread cryptocurrency for mainstream use because of its Layer-Two solutions. Even in its current state, it has been quite successful (unlike its competitors). With different scalability solutions being tested on various blockchain networks (BTC, BCH, BSV) we could determine which is the best (and safest) path to take (Block size increase, off-chain transactions, etc) for Bitcoin to be used by anyone in the world. Just my thoughts ;D

Bch and bsv have nothing to do with bitcoin. Those are altcoins  which were forked from the bitcoin chain and those consensus rules were rejected by the community.

This is what decentralization means. Nobody is forced to follow a fork which changed the rules.

Roger Ver's chain and Faketoshi's chain are not decentralized because they are owned by people who can control their network.  They have a central planner. Community rejected their ideas and they decided to implement them anyway. That is what centralization is about.

Plus to have their cake and eat it too, they declare THEIR altcoin as the "real Bitcoin" because "Satoshi's Vision"/whitepaper.

That simply, doesn't how it works.

It got real crazy when bsv became the real bitcoin cash lol

It is pitiful to see the state of our ecosystem. Too many scammers , just trying to make quick money from people who are not very informed about the subject.

This whole fork drama is bad for bitcoin. But now both "real bitcoin" and "real bitcoin cash" look dead so we can move on.