Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin SV

[CaMeRoNy]

I believe that the Bitcoin cash Bitcoin SV, neither of these plugs is not a good coin. If you buy only Bitcoin, the original.

[JuliaJi]

I learning bitcoin cash graphics from the begining, I believe it will be popular and strong currency, better that other forks

[ðºÞæ]

.....................Bitcoin, the original.

If you would be so kind and point me to the section of segregated witness (segwit) here is Bitcoins white paper
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf

Creating a banking channel (lightning) is like opening a bank account and has nothing to do with original Bitcoin.
Satoshi's version  is Peer to Peer (Men to Men, Person to Person) without 3rd party. Unwanted, not necessary or needed.

Satoshi quote
Quote
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

[sergei1703]

In my opinion, it is like to make a choice between dogs sheet and cats sheet. Both these coins are not worth to invest in them, because only original BTC is #1.

[sorrros]

I hope that this battle will end soon and noone will win - both will die and the only one that survive will be Bitcoin Core.
Please explain to newcomers that Bitcoin SV is fork of fork of Bitcoin.

[Abiky]

I hope that this battle will end soon and noone will win - both will die and the only one that survive will be Bitcoin Core.
Please explain to newcomers that Bitcoin SV is fork of fork of Bitcoin.

I believe that the battle has already ended after nearly two weeks of the hash war. The SV camp had already stated that they do not want to claim the name of Bitcoin Cash, but rather the original Bitcoin. Now, SV claims to be the original Bitcoin (something that BCH claimed prior to the hash war). As for both cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin Cash (ABC) is now on its own side, while Bitcoin SV has separated ways by implementing Replay Protection.

Bitcoin SV is a fork of the original Bitcoin blockchain and the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. The huge block size of 128mb makes it far more scalable and capable than both BCH and BTC. However, this adds up a greater level of centralization if blocks become filled to their entirety. On the other hand, BCH has more a more flexible block size capacity, but it's also centralized (as it was shown in the hash war, that the ABC camp used centralized checkpoints to protect against block reorganizations from the SV camp).

Because of the reasons said before, I believe that none have won the battle. Both BCH and BSV have lost many investors and will soon lose their communities due to mistrust on the development team. People will turn themselves back to the original Bitcoin (BTC), while BCH and BSV will become history.

Nonetheless, time will tell us what will really happen with these forks since other altcoins have survived after being forked from their parent chains. Ethereum Classic is a good example of this, where it forked from the original Ethereum blockchain back in 2016, and it's still alive and running. The same thing could happen with both BCH and BSV. Just my thoughts

[ðºÞæ]

BSV is Hardcore Bitcoiners the way Satoshi created it. None of this none bitcoin 3rd party  segregated witness (segwit) bullshit, aka creating banking channel or tinkering with max supply or what not.
It is a staunch community thats why they carry forward the creators way of bitcoin chain, aka Men to Men (Peer to Peer like in White paper) transaction.

ABC is Chinese miners version

[Abiky]

BSV is Hardcore Bitcoiners the way Satoshi created it. None of this none bitcoin 3rd party  segregated witness (segwit) bullshit, aka creating banking channel or tinkering with max supply or what not.
It is a staunch community thats why they carry forward the creators way of bitcoin chain, aka Men to Men (Peer to Peer like in White paper) transaction.

ABC is Chinese miners version

Bitcoin SV may have all the original features of Bitcoin, but it will become highly centralized over the long term, because of its huge block size. Considering how many people cannot meet the necessary budget to operate an SV node (in case blocks would become filled to their entirety), due to high storage and bandwidth requirements, only a few people (mostly wealthy individuals) would be able to maintain the Bitcoin SV blockchain. Of course, this could change if somehow storage and bandwidth would increase at a fast pace over time, while costs become reduced (Moore's law).

However, that's not happening, which means that the risk of centralization is still there for SV. On the other hand, BTC has a much smaller block size which is quite manageable for everyday people as storage and bandwidth requirements are low. In the case of Bitcoin Cash, I fully agree with you. Bitcoin Cash (ABC) is the Chinese miners’ version of Bitcoin since Bitmain's Jihan Wu fully backs it. As for the future direction of Bitcoin, time will tell whenever the Lightning Network or a block size increase is the most viable solution for scaling.

Nonetheless, both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV may survive for a long time. It will depend on how many users, businesses and startups are supporting them. So far, Bitcoin Cash (ABC) has the most support when compared with Bitcoin SV. There may not be many nodes and miners for SV, but that could change in the future if people become largely interested in it. Just my opinion

[3acaga]

All of you, that in the entire life of Bitcoin, there were already a lot of splits, and not a single so-called clone-Bitcoin could even come close to Bitcoin.

[cpk02]

I think the bitcoin currency Now many uses of blockchain technology are almost evenly distributed in every sector of modern life. Both the health, environmental, economic and even education sectors.
So the new token that appears is certainly not just / like old tokens whose functions are quite limited. So I think it's pretty good. Although we will also be more confused to determine what coins/tokens we can invest later.

[mr.robot8]

i think they are equivalent, on a personal level i prefer bitcoin cash, bitcoin sv i do not think has brought anything new beyond the possibility of choosing the size of the blocks that i do not care about it

[Abiky]

i think they are equivalent, on a personal level i prefer bitcoin cash, bitcoin sv i do not think has brought anything new beyond the possibility of choosing the size of the blocks that i do not care about it

When comparing both Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Cash seems to be much more stable and reliable than SV these days. However, SV only has a few months since its inception, which means that it could improve over time. It'll be interesting to watch both blockchains grow alongside each other, as it'll help determine which is the best in terms of scalability, and most of all, reliability. In terms of decentralization, Bitcoin is still the winner (at least in the technical aspects).

However, some level of centralization (like BCH and BSV have) is somewhat good for high transaction throughput and low fees. Which is why, increasing the block size over time, will help the blockchain network to retain its scalability (with the downside that storage and bandwidth costs will rise accordingly). Perhaps, someday BCH and BSV would aim for unlimited block sizes enabling massive scalability, but with a huge centralization risk.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin Cash (ABC) seems to have the most support from merchants, individuals, startups, and companies alike (according to Coin.dance stats). Things could change in the future, if people adopt Bitcoin SV at a large scale. Just my opinion

[ttg43]

I invested in Bitcoin Cash last year but after the split or you can say hardfork its a big loss. I am still hopeful for long term but don't know howlong.

[lutcor]

If you choose from these projects, I probably would not have chosen anything, because both of these projects are simply hopeless today. These projects are not used anywhere and I think that they will not be popular.

[Abiky]

I invested in Bitcoin Cash last year but after the split or you can say hardfork its a big loss. I am still hopeful for long term but don't know howlong.

Agree. After the BCH Hash War, things have changed drastically in people's perception of Bitcoin Cash. Now, many have abandoned the BCH blockchain because of uncertainty related to the same. While BSV has parted separate ways, the events of the Hash War were a complete mess. It shows how centralized are both ends (Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV) either by using checkpointing or controlling a large share of the network's hashrate (like Craig and Calvin).

Bitcoin Cash's current price is way lesser that it was prior to the hard fork. It's a good thing I've gotten out of BCH before Nov 15th, as I would've lost a lot of money by now. I'm not thinking of going back to BCH, unless it improves to be a decentralized cryptocurrency for the masses. Despite this, given the reputation both chains had during the Hash War (BCH and BSV), it'll be hard for either BCH or BSV to gain traction anytime soon.

Nonetheless, in this bear market, it's good to remain with some Bitcoin (BTC) while everything goes back to normal.

[trash321]

I see no reason at all today to talk about what would be best at the moment. In my opinion, both projects have no sense whatsoever, so today I see that the market as a whole does not accept any forks. Today, only real cryptocurrencies.

[trade2winnn]

Honestly I do not know did not study the project BItcoinSV and what it is promising,but for me so I'm sure that it will flourish mainly Bitcoin itself,and its Forks will always be in the back place, ESA of the two to choose probably still bitcoin cache, as it is strongly sagged, and there is a basis to believe that it should be very good to grow, but not the fact that SV so will grow, as a relatively new coin, and especially BZ drawdown it was

[No Pain No blood]

I don't choose the second, BTC is the only real coin, besides it is shit. You must have known about the hardfork bch yesterday. Bch developers only want to make a profit and that only worsens the crypto market.

[Abiky]

I see no reason at all today to talk about what would be best at the moment. In my opinion, both projects have no sense whatsoever, so today I see that the market as a whole does not accept any forks. Today, only real cryptocurrencies.

Exactly. Both projects have no sense, since they’re nearly identical to Bitcoin with only a few minor tweaks. Increasing the block size capacity, and reactivating some opcodes, is not innovative since Bitcoin had such features in its early days. In other words, Bitcoin didn't have a block size limit, with many opcodes activated. However, the real Satoshi did implement a limit in block size and disabled some opcodes for a very good reason (to protect the BTC blockchain from attacks). This has allowed Bitcoin to remain a resilient and decentralized cryptocurrency ever since it came into inception back in 2009.

Removing the block size limit or increasing it to enormous levels, as well as, reactivating some opcodes, will make Bitcoin highly centralized and insecure. Which is why, I believe that at some point in the future, BCH and BSV will fail due to their centralization and unstable blockchains. As such, the more the block size increases, the worst as average people won't be able to afford running a full node (in case blocks were filled to their maximum capacity of either 32mb or 128mb.

Therefore, only real cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum will survive for many years to come. Just my thoughts

[Pline]

Have you heard blockchain info added bitcoin SV in their wallet? I believe it is positive sign. By the way I prefer to stay away from both bitcoin ACB and bitcoin SV.
This hardfork seems shady for me and I don't see big future for any of these coins.