Technical comparison of BTC, BCH and BSV

But what are the differences between the various bearings at the technical level?

Bitcoin (BTC)
Of the three projects, Bitcoin is the only one to have fixed the Transaction Malleability. The fix is SegWit. At the same time the block size was abolished and replaced by a block weight. It works like this: Each byte of a transaction has a “weight” of four bytes. However, if it is a byte of the SegWit area (i.e. the outsourced digital signature of a transaction), then this byte weighs only one byte in the block.

Bitcoin formula transactions thus receive a discount

There are new address formats for Bitcoin formula. On the one hand these are the Bitcoin formula addresses, which begin with a 3. On the other hand there are the native P2WPKH and P2WSH, or Bech32 addresses, which begin with bc1.

SegWit was a soft fork. In other words, the members of the Bitcoin network did not have to actively agree. However, this also means that not all members of the Bitcoin network have yet benefited from the innovation. If we currently look at the Bitcoin ecosystem, we see that SegWit is only used in 40 percent of all Bitcoin transactions.

Finally, it should be noted that SegWit encourages the development of second levels – namely the Lightning Network.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
Since the Hard Fork in November 2018, Bitcoin Cash has had little resemblance to the Bitcoin Cash before this Hard Fork. Only the name has remained the same.

The biggest change, which also caused the controversy with SV, was the Canonical Transaction Ordering, CTOR for short. This would make scaling to extremely large blocks easier, because blocks can propagate themselves faster in the network. Bitcoin and Bitcoin SV, on the other hand, arrange their transactions topologically (TTOR). However, BCH does not yet have such large blocks, let alone the transaction volume. The chart shows the average number of transactions per block compared to Bitcoin (BTC).

Apart from a few spikes, the Bitcoin trader transaction volume is far below Bitcoin

The second controversial change is the activation of OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY (DSV). This allows Smart Contracts and Oracles to be integrated into the Bitcoin trader blockchain, for example: https://www.forexaktuell.com/en/bitcoin-trader-scam/

The Hard Fork also brought some smaller innovations, such as a minimum size of 100 bytes for transactions, a tidy stack and push-only for scriptSig. The block size remained unchanged at 32 megabytes.

In the Hash War, however, BCH suffered a severe war wound: Out of fear of a 51 percent attack through hidden mining, the developers of the implementation ABC used their power and installed checkpoints in the clients. This made it impossible to reorganize the blockchain over ten blocks. This action can be criticized as a shot into one’s own leg, as a result of which BCH moves further and further away from Satoshi’s actual “vision”, in which the chain with the most proof of work is to be regarded as a valid history of the transactions.

Bitcoin SV (BSV)
Satoshi’s vision lives on in Bitcoin SV. Under the leadership of Craig “Satoshi” Wright, BSV is approaching the original version of the Bitcoin protocol again – of course without the initial bugs.

At the Hard Fork on November 15, BSV increased the maximum block size to 128 megabytes. Furthermore some OP codes of the original protocol were reactivated. Thus the vision of a full programming language on the protocol level is brought back to life. The Hard Fork also loosened the restrictions for scripts.

So BSV was able to save itself from the Hash War mostly unharmed. After all, one had to realize that the former Bitcoin Cash network was irreconcilably divided.

You can go your own way
History has shown that the Bitcoin community has fundamental differences of opinion. Bitcoin (BTC) sees the Store of Value as the added value of the crypto currency. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV), on the other hand, emphasise the function of the medium in exchange. In some cases, these different perspectives led to forks in the path where communities split.

On the one hand, there is the beauty of an open source and unapproved software: Everyone may take the path that in his eyes is the best. On the other hand, the hard forks tear up the communities and prevent the network effect of a uniform, global means of payment.

For us users, the question arises as to which project is the best. But while the miners and developers have to decide where to put their energy, we can dance at all weddings. The last penny on the Bitcoin question has not yet fallen. So let’s wait patiently for a few more years and