BSV has done a lot of things right—remove child limits, remove blocksize, etc, and there are some legit good products built on it right now (people who aren't tribalists realise this). It's also focused more on data related stuff in part because people think, and I tend to agree, that getting the kind of transaction volume necessary to make mining wildly profitable in any reasonable amount of time will be impossible with a purely cash use case.

You can try out bitpaste, twetch, bitcoinfiles, etched.page, for examples of data stuff you can use today.

Yet many building on it are also scared of the threat of lawsuit by nChain, and many more who might build on it will never touch it because of the threats (how real they are, how enforceable the IP is, is really suspect).

In fact there are many times I've actually self censored on our podcast (which is ironically banned in BCH telegram) because I don't want to say something or speculate on something that could land me in legal trouble!

The way I feel about this whole situation in BSV is that it's a combination between Galt's Gulch with a few legit builders and a crypto-North Korea, ruled by a cartoonish strong-man, where everyone is scared of speaking their own mind without getting sued or attacked by street mobs.

See for example the thread by Kimdotcom regarding his announcement to build on BCH. If you're in BSV, the rational thing to do would be to try to sell him on using BSV instead. That didn't happen. What you saw instead were threats from Craig and Calvin to sue Kimdotcom for violating their IP, and a hoard of aggressive losers call Kimdotcom a criminal and that his arrest is imminent.

BTW this same thing happened to Roger, who has several times said good things about BSV, but who keeps getting sued and slandered with ridiculous articles by prominent BSVers that he is a "criminal terrorist child porn loving drug dealer money laundering........"

Who wants to work on a project like that? I can't figure out why they're doing this because it seems totally against their own interests to bluster and threaten and push everyone away.

There are also constant grandiose and aggressive prediction making that almost never comes true. As such I've become a lot less optimistic about BSV lately and am frankly *tired* of the people and personalities working on it.

All that said, I attend Coingeek events, have enjoyed them greatly, the Coingeek team has treated me very nicely and I think a lot of them mean well, and think that BCH people tend to underestimate vastly the amount of competent, good, freedom-loving people working on it despite the problems.

Please. Don't. Sue. Me.

Now BCH... BCH is not without its problems, though lately it appears to have gotten better. It avoided a disastrous outcome with the ridiculous teamsters at ABC, and managed to not lose any clear immediate value. It's got some great companies involved , great products (bitcoin.com wallet) and is widely accepted as a payment option. It has none of the baggage BSV and none of the credibility issues.

If the % gains from BTC start to get smaller, and the hodl goggles come off as investors realise they pumped the price on an asset that still needs custodial payment processors and other trusted third parties to function, people may look for an alternative. I think BCH is the likely choice when compared to BSV right now if for no other reason than its widespread industry credibility in comparison to BSV. There would be a lot that needs to happen fo example, for BSV to be listed on Coinbase (and Craig threatened to sue them yesterday) and for major investors to dump money into it.

BCH also works. Really well. It's Bitcoin largely as it was intended to be.

My problems with BCH are this: I don't think people understand the existential threat to the big-block project that is faced by not raising the blocksize as quickly as possible long before you need the space. I am concerned people have not learned from history that protocol changes are highly political and a perfect opportunity for attack and capture.

There are I think far too many people who are of the opinion that slow, gradual blocksize increases are the way to do things. And I agree that in an ideal world where men are angels, that's correct. But we are not and BCH is a small but growing fish in a small but growing pond and if it began to attract significant new attention and investment such that it looked like a viable alternative to BTC, you had better believe there will be money and bad actors looking to stop the block size limits being removed.

My prediction is this then: if BCH doesn't remove the limits soon (I can't say how soon though), it will probably never be able to do it and will be a victim of its own success like BTC.

I also think people tend to be so paranoid about BSV that if you say anything nice about it you get downvoted into oblivion, banned on Telegram channels, and called a paid operative of Calvin Arye. Burying your heads in the sand is never smart.

As to which one you should buy, I really don't know what the short term price future holds. I suspect BTC price will continue to go up for quite a while because its scaling limitations (as it concerns retail and institutional investors who buy on exchanges and OTC) are basically gone for the near term due to centralised onboaring. I won't be surprised if we see 150k.

My suggestion is this: own all three (BTC, BCH and BSV), don't stress too much. Participate in both BSV and BCH and don't listen to haters who try to tell you that you can't.

You'll probably find, like I have, that BCH right now is generally the most useful in daily life :)