I was never a fan of Craig Wright to be quite honest with you. I didn't like the way he blackmailed the whole Bitcoin community into mining his coin otherwise he would dump all his BTC. He did dump a lot at the time and caused a mini market crash, so fro that reason I will NEVER SUPPORT BITCOIN SV and even if it makes some money on a pump, out of principle I will just never buy or invest in it. There are so many other praiseworthy projects out there and I like the original BITCOIN as well, so will stick to that as a source of long term asset.
Looks like you like the altcoin market and i am assuming that because you are advertising some random project and you are talking about principle even if it gives you the profit but you can jump on random projects and earn the profit
. I am not a fan of CSW and his bullshit but if BSV can scale like they are claiming then i would not mind using them in the future and that does not mean i will not use bitcoin. If they can coexist so be it and it is better than majority of the shit coins in the market.
I read an article today about the Mt. Gox hacked coins in possession of CSW and his never ending misery continues.
Even though you, ene1980, seem to be correctly criticizing the never BSV position of qiwoman2 based on some other altcoin affinities, your attempt to give some legitimacy to BSV based on supposed technical grounds cannot be taken seriously, can they?
Is it really possible to take either Bcash or BcashSV seriously because they are both based upon scams. Can a coin come into existence through a scam and then become legitimate based on some supposed technicalities that might exist? Personally, I am having trouble with giving any benefit of the doubt to either of those bcash variants, and neither of them have even removed themselves from their scam components with the passage of time, either.
In other words, there seems to be a decently high burden of proof (with evidence) and burden of presentation (with logic) to show either or both of the bcash variants (BCH or BSV) as having any kind of laudable technical features... and probably one of the first hurdles for either of them to overcome would be their ongoing seemingly centralized control cult figures..... anyhow, there would likely be a lot more that would need to be shown after getting rid of what appears to be centralized control cult figures that are engaging in smoke and mirrors before we even get close to considering if there might be some technical contributions, even if they are not planning to compete directly with bitcoin (or otherwise serve as BTC attack vectors).....
By the way, qiwoman2, there is no need to put the word "original" in front of bitcoin.. because there is only one bitcoin, even if others are trying to use the bitcoin name. It should be a good thing to remove yourself from such nonsense habit in terms of referring to any coin, besides bitcoin with the word bitcoin, then you would not feel some need to put a qualifier in front of king daddy's name.