Its quickly abandoning itself. We already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.
No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit.
... ant Ctor, and DSV,
tru dat
You guys are missing the point. The general public, which your fork of a fork is trying to appeal to, don't care about what was in the original white paper.
I understand the points you are making, I just find them underwhelming. I do not disagree with your immediately preceding statement. However _I_ care about what was in the original white paper.
Can you describe to me why is it that you believe the cruft that the current Core handlers have added is objectively better than the original protocol that they cast overboard?
Quote
It's a talking point aimed at crypto enthusiasts who might be on the fence,
No, it is far more than a talking point. It is a concrete technical difference between BTC and BSV. BTC has abandoned the original design, well before it revealed any flaws (i.e., none known to this day).
Quote
and are easily manipulated.
Sez you. I might throw your comment back at your camp.
Quote
The average world citizen doesn't care about your interpretation of the white paper, they just want a product that works and is usable.
The average world citizen should not need to care about the white paper. Just as they don't care about the technical details of how the credit card systems work. But such systems need be technically sound.
I agree that they just want a product that works and is usable.
And when the next step function wave of adoption occurs, BTC will once again experience an interminable backlog of tx volume, with soaring tx fees. At which point it will 'work' only in the vaguest sense, and will be all-but-unusable. At which point, the wisdom of having stayed with the original protocol design will be revealed.
