Argument that BSV is ‘centralized’.
TAAL currently 41% of BSV hashrate,
Antpool currently 46% of BCH hashrate.
arguments that the licence on BSV isn’t open source, despite the licence being open source, dead forum, alluding to BCH working better, lmao wut
‘we have several groups of 1 to 5 people and wordy agreement processes because we all want to add our unique special flavors to the sauce and so can’t agree on things. dickering over a protocol is obviously a superior approach to building on a protocol, as is evinced by our superior throughput and technology’ -BCH
‘selfish mining’ is a theoretical block withholding attack which isn’t seen due to the lack of economic benefit in doing so.
‘selfishly mining transactions’ is a retort stemming from BCH’s lack of performance
does BCH still flop at 22mb on live net or what?
I’m convinced the mass exodus of bitcoin cash advocates from the public forums is related to an inability to win an argument - making participation strongly discouraging.
apparently this exact type of block withholding attack has happened on BSV. It’s still not profitable though.
But sticking to the topic, BSV will become more decentralized over time as a result of a fixed protocol.
Evert protocol change has winners and losers, proponents and detractors, every change that’s made is a byproduct of centralized control. BTC and BCH are more centralized than BSV by that metric.
BU had a decentralized approach to protocol changes with a centralized internal member control.
The only thing central to BSV is that CSW does not run out of liquor.