BitcoinSV Russia 🐉

I was asked about Simon Dixons standpoint about BSV and thought you all might are interested in a short review from my perspective, so I quoted the question underneath and answered it in this posting. In his latest Interview Simon Dixon says the real battle is over who owns your money, your data, and the technology you use. It is a battle of Centralized versus decentralized. He says you should hold assets you control. Invest as a hedge against their system, understand the world, and look at what you actually control in life. I agree with some of his statements. Simon says but also "BSV was created by scammers and fakes. Bitcoin is bigger than Core." That sentence is an opening. If Bitcoin is bigger than Core, then 2017 wasn't a law of nature — it was a decision made by people with commit access. And in 2023 the English Court of Appeal said exactly that in Tulip Trading v van der Laan: it is realistically arguable that developers owe fiduciary duties to coin owners, because those owners entrusted their property "into the care of the core developers," who hold the de facto authority through commit access. Dixon asks who owns your technology and A court answered: the people with the repo. "BSV was created by scammers and fakes." The first sentence is a claim about a man. "Craig Wright is not Satoshi" — the UK High Court ruled in 2024. But a "forged" biography is not evidence about a rule set on a protocol. I audit here the rules, not some résumés or a probably corrupt court rule. So, I wanna describe the rules here in Four pillars. TX ID. On BSV the signature is part of the transaction, therefore part of the txid, therefore part of the proof. On BTC, SegWit pulled the witness data out of the txid — signature and transaction are separate objects, linked only by a commitment in the coinbase. The evidence sits then next to the evidence. TIMESTAMP. On BSV, signature, transaction, and block time are one dated object. A court can establish that these keys controlled this output at this point in time. No external signature, no notary, no off-chain log. SET IN STONE. On BSV the protocol is not changeable and there is no size parameter for an upgrade team to turn. On BTC it's Core's soft-fork pipeline. On BCH it's an algorithm. UNLIMITED SCALING. No block cap doesn't mean "more TPS than everyone." It means capacity is a function of hashrate and bandwidth, not of a number somebody picked. It is the only design where fee revenue can eventually carry miners over time once the block subsidy fades. It is necessary for long term usage. Now back to BCH, because that's the honest comparison here. BCH kept the 2009 signature model — no SegWit. On that axis BCH is closer to BSV than to BTC, and I'll say so: BCH satisfies three of my four pillars. The signature is in the txid, the transaction is timestamped in the block, and nothing about ABLA changes who owns a UTXO. What BCH fails is the fourth. The cap is not a constant, it's a control loop: 8 MB, then 32 MB, and since May 2024 ABLA — recomputed after every block from a weighted average of recent block sizes, forget factor, asymmetry factor 1.5, buffer half-life of roughly six months, 32 MB floor, growth capped at 2x per year. The CHIP itself says the limit can be adjusted, adapted, or removed later. That is not an attack on ownership. It's an attack on settlement certainty: capacity, fee levels, and data cost are governance parameters that a CHIP process can move, and an enterprise building on-chain property rights needs those numbers fixed at the protocol layer, not tuned or decided by committee. BSV answers that differently. The restoration is finished, and the protocol is being frozen in its original form. And it adds the layer BCH and BTC simply don't have: a court order can be made consensus-enforceable. Through the alert channel, miners can freeze a UTXO or reassign it via a confiscation transaction on judicial order — history untouched, the action itself on-chain, with a full audit trail of why, when, and especially under whose authority. That's not a rule that never changes. It's a rule that can be invoked if needed — which is what property actually means in law. A right you can prove, but never enforce isn't ownership, it's a receipt. So BCH fails on rule stability, BTC fails on signature placement, scalability and on who holds the commit keys. BSV is the only one that treats a court order as a valid input. Mr. Dixon is right that the battle is about ownership. He just never checked which chain can enforce it. An honest system is build on set rules, that not change with an action of a core dev team. Authority is afraid of that. Redistribution of power and control. Dr. Wright always knew this and opposed them anyway. I believe in change and I believe in a better world. When it comes to control, control what you can, start with yourself, your reactions and actions towards others. Bitcoin is bigger then you and me, but it becomes only what it was meant to be, when we all gonna make proper usage of it. Thanks for reading. -Hekto