I'm seeking to determine which crypto currencies are the most famous with the assumption that bitcoin is the most popular one. This question is up to extraordinary interpretations due to the fact "maximum popular" may be considered many one-of-a-kind methods and that is why i am here asking this question. maximum popular might be based totally on the most actual global use, the maximum media interest, the most precious, or the most variety of humans mining or the most processing electricity used in mining.
Bitcoin is in a class of itself. It's a false equivalency to compare 'cryptocurrencies' to BTC. All the techno bros assert their centralized private coin is better in some technological aspect that misses the point of 'why' Bitcoin. When one understands the 'why' of bitcoin, there is no alternative other than to 'stack sats'. BTC is the long game and it's going after the reserve currency crown of 'hard' and 'sound' money.
Get yourself together, will you? Unless of course if you never heard of BCH. Now OP didn't classify what he mean't by most popular, as this could mean: 1. Most used. 2. Most well known. 3. Highest daily traded volume. etc.etc. I am lazy to google it but ETH and BCH should be in the top 3 in most of the above categories.
lol, BCH/BSV are low hash rate forks. Miners have spoken. ETH was pre-mined. Neither share the characteristics of BTC nor or of the same class. Craig Wright is a fraud. If you are gonna reduce the discussion to ad hominem quips,... see ya!
I agree, because they are better. BTC was also premined, someone owns 1 MM BTCs somewhere. I also agree on CW, and who the fuck cares about him anyway? And what is wrong with forks if they are better than the original? Never heard of technical im provement? I bet you still use Betamax. Do you actually have an argument? If not cee ya!
Let’s deal with facts. There is not one single metric of comparison where BTC does not dominate. Detailed comparison: https://coinmetrics.io/a-comparative-analysis-of-bitcoin-forks/ Summary “Although BSV and BCH have some of the desirable features of a medium of exchange asset, like low transaction fees, this has not yet led to a large increase in activity as compared to BTC. Both BCH and BSV still only have a small fraction of the usage of BTC when measured by metrics like adjusted transfer value and active addresses. Furthermore, BSV and BCH are increasingly being used as ways to store data on chain (often without an associated economic transaction), and not as a medium of exchange. BSV, in particular, is predominantly being used as a way to record data on-chain, with over 94% of transactions containing OP_RETURN, a majority of which come from a single weather application. BSV may ultimately be used as a data storage blockchain, likely due to their removal of the size restriction on OP_RETURN transactions. Additionally, although both BCH and BSV have larger maximum block sizes than BTC, they have not yet utilized that extra space. For the most part, BCH and BSV’s daily average block size has remained well below BTC’s 1MB average. Both BSV and BCH have had blocks that have exceeded BTC’s maximum blocks. BSV blocks, in particular, are increasingly being filled by OP_RETURN transactions. BSV and BCH’s increased block size may become a factor if either gain adoption as a data storage blockchain. But it does not appear to currently be a factor in terms of being used as a medium of exchange. Additionally, BTC currently has a big lead over BCH and BSV in the four metrics we used to measure security. BTC has over 95% of the hash rate market share (amongst BTC, BCH, and BSV) as of July, 2019. BTC also dominates in terms of daily mining revenue. BTC has over 30 and 60 times more daily mining revenue than BCH and BSV, respectively. This will become even more of an issue as block rewards continue to halve, as BCH and BSV’s total transaction fees are negligible compared to BTC’s. We also found that if BTC miners were to theoretically attack BCH they could rewrite ten days of the blockchain in 7 hours. If they were instead to attack BSV, they could rewrite it in 3 hours. As of now, BCH and BSV are not gaining real usage over BTC as a medium of exchange, and are not utilizing their larger block sizes. BTC also remains a much more secure blockchain than both BCH and BSV. It remains to be seen whether BCH and BSV can take more of BTC’s market share moving forward.”
I never mentioned BSV, so I don't know why you are bringing it up. How about energy and fee efficiency? What you would expect from a 10 year old product? You can argue against the other features listed in post #6. BTC's technology is also incredibly hard to change. It is almost impossible to reach consensus, thus its technology is not flexible. That is why it is easier to fork and work with a new crypto than managing the old boy. You are saying BCH is used for data dumping instead of for media of exchange? Funny because BTC is used as storage of value (very bad for a currency) not media of exchange. So you have no advantage or point here. "they have not yet utilized that extra space." But the possibility is there, unlike for BTC. Mining revenue?? First, why do we care, second, that is only because its valuation is high. "BTC miners were to theoretically attack BCH they could rewrite ten days of the blockchain in 7 hours." That is a problem of cryptos in general, not specific to BCH.
You seem to approach Bitcoin from a technological perspective instead of the perspective of it as a peaceful voluntary cultural evolution from fiat to 'sound' money that it is. Honeybadger doesn't care if you on-board or do not. It's a permission-less, censorship-resistant, decentralized, mathematically scarce, cryptographically secured and open-source digitally native (SoV, MoE, UoA) with a fixed monetary policy that you can store in your head. It is an alternative to hedge against quantitative easing, negative interest rates, deficit spending, fractional reserves, capital control Central banking. As for energy usage and efficiency, PoW is incentivizing rapid adoption of renewable energy use - simply because it's cheaper to do so. For greater HQ detail: