A conversation between a BTC believer and a BSV believer
This took place on YouTube comments area. I provide the conversation here just to invite more people to think about it, from both sides.
Zemes Gaoson (BSV believer): Lyn Alden does a great job explaining. But like everyone else, she omits the most fundamental difference between gold and bitcoin: if the mining of gold stops, gold will still remain gold (none of its physical nature from atomic structure will change a bit), but if the mining of bitcoin is diminished or stops, bitcoin will decay (in quality not in quantity) or die.
So the key is, what keeps the mining going?
BSV mining will continue, because BSV mining will be increasingly driven by transaction processing, not only block hashing. BTC has no such internal drive or foundation in principle, much less in practice.
Block hashing serves a critical purpose, but cannot self-sustain unless the coin price goes up perpetually, and even then there is a definite end of mining at a certain point of time, by design.
It does not matter how many eloquent arguments you make, bitcoin is a purely faith-based self-fulfilling asset, unless it has utility. BSV is predicated on utility while BTC is a self-fulfilling believing system.
BSV is the real bitcoin based on Satoshi’s original vision, and therefore the true bitcoin is going to thrive to become increasingly integrated with the global economy by serving as the backbone of IoV and Web3, but BTC will eventually become a niche for its unique character of offering something “separate from government”.
SAL (BTC believer)): I was interested in reading your assessment until you brought up the bsv altcoin 👎👎
Zemes Gaoson: @SAL I understand you. I too despised BSV because the very name was scandalous, until I did a thorough study, that means hundreds of hours (note: actually much more than that)
SAL: all the research anyone reasonable needs to do about BSV is to learn how Craig Wright produced a fraudulent signature in 2016.
Zemes Gaoson: Thanks, and I’m fully aware that. That’s not how I reasoned though. 99.99% of my time was spent on studying BTC and BSV (starting from the original white paper) from multidisciplinary viewpoints (computer sciences, economics, law, business, monetary theory, etc.), rather than Craig Wright himself.
Despite the fact that I find his personality objectionable, I do believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, or at least his claim to be Satoshi is a hundred times stronger than any other person in this world.
However, that belief carries very little weight on my opinion about BSV and BTC. If he turned out to be an imposter, the impact on BSV is going to be mostly psychological, not substantive.
SAL: only a fraud would need to ever provide a fraudulent digital signature. Craig produced a fraudulent signature in 2016. Therefore, Craig Wright is a fraud. Since you can’t plainly see this obvious fact, that means none of what you say is credible.
Zemes Gaoson: I only wish the world was that simple. Isaac Newton failed to see the South Sea fraud, therefore…?
Let’s not confuse “failing to prove innocence” with “having been proven guilty”.
Also, I could see that he provided weak (or probably even fake) evidence in 2016. However, in the courts of the law, providing fake evidence would discredit a witness who is testifying for certain truth, but that does not equal to proving the contested truth is false. Two different matters.
But that’s not even the key. As I said, to me, whether Craig Wright is a fraud or not bears little weight on whether BSV is the right technology and ecosystem to develop.
Of course, if you already made up your mind that I am not credible, all I can do is to apologize for wasting your time.