Bitcoin has three main branches BTC, BCH and BSV. BTC is conservative, BCH is moderate, and BSV is radical. BTC has the largest market capitalization and also enjoys the actual name of Bitcoin, but the block limit is only 1M, which is slow and congested to use, and has the worst function. BCH was originally split to solve the problem of block expansion. It is committed to realizing the concept of electronic cash in the white paper, which is why it is named Bitcoin Cash. BCH block size is moderate, and other functions have been introduced. The BSV block is very large, even infinite blocks, the most radical.
There are many supporters of these three. I have carefully considered the routes of the three. I am relatively supportive of the BCH route, but I think that the three of them are not a life-and-death relationship. They should be able to coexist for a long time and explore different routes. Coins leave more fire for life.
BTC has the worst scalability, slow and expensive transfers, but its market value ranks first among cryptocurrencies. The core reason is probably because of its conservativeness. People buy Bitcoin, the biggest purpose is to preserve and increase its value. Security and stability is the most important thing. The biggest consensus is the most important thing. BTC changes the least and is the most decentralized. People trust it the most. The handling fee is high. Transfer money slowly and don’t care. BCH was split, and the consensus is far inferior to BTC, but it has made many improvements, such as fast transfer, low cost, easy to use, and a pragmatic route. Take one step at a time. BSV was split from BCH because BCH could not satisfy BSV’s radical line. BSV claims to be a digital archive of human civilization, and all kinds of information in the world, such as copyright, property rights, patents, voting, charity, etc., will be uploaded to the chain for notarization, and various applications will be developed on the chain. 1. Carrying the information of the entire human civilization, BSV’s route is the most ambitious and radical.
In my opinion, the biggest role of Bitcoin is to store value and currency. From the country to the common people, a good means of storing value is needed and currency is needed. The world is booming, all for profit, the world’s hustle and bustle, all for profit, any project, the ultimate goal will lead to stored value and currency. Doing these two functions is more meaningful than all kinds of fancy gimmicks. This is why I think it is impossible for currencies other than the Bitcoin series to surpass Bitcoin. The ultimate goal of the applications of other currencies is to make money. If you make money, you have to store value, you have to use money, and Bitcoin is money. Blockchain technology is not a panacea. It can only ensure that the information on the chain is not tampered with, and cannot guarantee the authenticity of the information source. Smart contracts can only solve online problems, but cannot solve offline problems. The country wants to engage in a non-coin blockchain. The currency circle is a currency-based blockchain. Among the problems that a currency-based blockchain can solve, none of them can match stored value and world currencies. This is why BTC has the highest market value.
But BTC has a fatal shortcoming. It is too conservative and will not expand. 1M blocks are definitely not enough. At present, the average number of transactions that can be processed per second is only 3 or 4, and a total of about 100 million transactions can be processed a year. Even if it is only used for storing value and not as a currency, it is not enough for people all over the world. There are hundreds or even thousands at every turn. If it is really accepted by the world, the handling fee will only go to heaven. In the long run, it will inevitably drive out ordinary users, and the prospects will not be much better. When BCH has been expanded, if BTC finds something wrong and then expands, it is slapped in the face and will cause BTC to split again, so BTC is basically impossible to expand.
I support BCH because it is more pragmatic and moderate. Expansion solves the problem of block congestion, but it is not like BSV, which does not take a leap forward to expand capacity regardless of actual conditions. Blocks are too small and not enough, and too big will hinder users from running full nodes and affect decentralization. The moderation of BCH is more in line with actual needs. Moreover, Satoshi Nakamoto also proposed to expand the capacity. The 1M upper limit is just a temporary limit he originally gave to prevent spam transactions from maliciously supporting large blocks. At present, ordinary computers and networks can also support BCH blocks. If there is a demand in the future and network conditions permit, the capacity can be continued to be expanded.
Expansion is necessary, but BSV has gone to the other extreme. 2G blocks and even infinite blocks will inevitably lead to extremely reduced nodes and greatly reduced security. In the event of a brute force attack or ban, the system will not operate. . If the block is too large, ordinary people cannot run a full node. BSV users can only look up to others and act on the faces of BSV bosses. What rules and things do the bosses who run BSV full nodes want to change and do, BSV users can only accept. From a moral and philosophical point of view, Bitcoin is a kind of power decentralization, and anyone can supervise the public facilities of the system. BCH failed to collect miner tax last time because community members objected and their nodes did not run the tax collection version. Ordinary users can also run full nodes, which is the supervision of the system and the checks and balances of the big guys. BTC has more than enough checks and balances but insufficient performance, and BSV has excess performance and insufficient checks and balances. BCH happens to maintain the balance between the two.
BSV claims to be a digital archive of human civilization, to cooperate with enterprises and governments, and to unite all the chains. The vision is ambitious and attractive, but in fact there are many contradictions. Blockchain can only guarantee that the information on the chain will not be tampered with, but it cannot guarantee the authenticity of the source information. People need the government and other authoritative organizations to endorse the data. The government can build a consortium chain by itself, and the data can be disclosed and backed up in multiple places. It can also serve as a digital archive and cannot be denied. This is more convenient to manage and the cost is more than BSV Much less. Since we all believe in government data, but don’t believe in the government’s alliance chain, it doesn’t make sense to have to transmit the data to BSV.
BSV can upload data at will, but it cannot guarantee the authenticity of the source of the information. It is entirely possible to upload a lot of false information to confuse the audience. If the information uploader is authenticated by signing, it is inevitable that the private key will be stolen and the uploader will upload false information. Happening. It can be seen from this that BSV cannot be a digital archive, at most it can become a web disk, but the cost of this web disk is much higher than that of a general web disk, and it cannot be widely used by the public. However, this network disk is open and transparent, cannot be tampered with, and is difficult to die. Therefore, many people may write their works, writings, achievements, and experiences in order to be “immortal.” A lot of pornography, violence, murder, terrorism, anti-government, pirated materials and other information will also be uploaded, which must be quite disgusting to the government. If the BSV bosses conduct censorship and reject certain information, which violates the principle of decentralization, who knows whether they will freeze their addresses and refuse to package their transactions? Common people will not trust this system. Without censorship, the government would not like the system, let alone cooperate with it. BSV’s route is unpleasant.
The BSV block is very large, and many smart contracts can be run on it, but the problem is that smart contracts cannot solve all problems, and smart contracts do not necessarily have to run on the blockchain. The core purpose of Bitcoin is to store value and currency. If it is used as stored value and currency, security and decentralization are extremely important. At the expense of security and decentralization, the pursuit of trivial performance improvement (such as the handling fee of a bill) From 1 point to 0.001 points, it seems to be reduced to 1/1000 of the original, but it doesn’t make much sense to users), BSV is losing everything.
BSV’s approach of locking down the underlying protocol is also too confident. Everyone wants to stabilize the protocol, but it cannot be forced to stabilize. It needs to be judged by the actual situation.
In addition, CSW’s own notoriety has also seriously affected the reputation of BSV. Although he has many insights, his notoriety as a liar will also greatly affect the development of BSV.
In summary, I am more optimistic about the moderate development model of BCH, where performance, security, and decentralization are relatively balanced. But I don’t think that BCH will definitely surpass BTC. The BTC fee is too high. Although it cannot be widely used by civilians in the future, it is still possible to be used as a digital gold reserve by large institutions or countries. It may be the anchor of cryptocurrency. Not so easy to be replaced. BCH will continue to serve as electronic cash to serve more civilians. BSV cannot be a digital archive, but it can also be used as a way of publicly storing information, which can be used to back up important information. No one can destroy the three, each occupying its own niche and coexisting for a long time.