Overview
Bitcoin SV (BSV) — "Satoshi Vision" — emerged from the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard fork in November 2018. The fork was driven primarily by Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre, who argued that Bitcoin should pursue massive block sizes (now up to 4GB) to enable enterprise-grade transaction throughput and data storage directly on the blockchain. BSV positions itself as the "original Bitcoin" as envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto, with Craig Wright infamously claiming to be Satoshi himself.
BSV is one of the most polarizing projects in crypto history. Its technical approach — scaling through raw block size increases — is coherent, but the project is inseparable from Craig Wright's fraudulent Satoshi claims, legal threats against Bitcoin developers, and a pattern of behavior that has alienated virtually the entire crypto community. Multiple exchanges have delisted BSV, and the project exists in a kind of industry exile.
Technology
Score: 4/10
BSV's technical approach is straightforward: scale Bitcoin by making blocks bigger. Current blocks can reach 4GB, enabling high throughput and on-chain data storage. This allows BSV to handle more transactions per second than BTC or BCH without Layer 2 solutions. The protocol also enables on-chain data applications (files, tokens, smart contracts). From a pure throughput perspective, the technology works. However, the big-block approach has serious trade-offs: node operation requires massive storage and bandwidth, centralizing the validator set. The "everything on chain" philosophy contradicts the modular, layered scaling approach that has won the broader industry's consensus. BSV's technology is not broken — it's just pursuing a scaling philosophy that the market has rejected.
Security
Score: 3/10
BSV's security model is deeply concerning. As a proof-of-work chain using SHA-256, it competes with Bitcoin and BCH for hash rate — and loses decisively. BSV's hash rate is a tiny fraction of Bitcoin's, making it theoretically vulnerable to 51% attacks. The chain has experienced multiple block reorganizations, including suspected attacks. The centralization of mining (a small number of pools control most hash rate) further weakens security. The massive block size means fewer nodes can afford to run, reducing the network's resilience. For a chain positioned for enterprise payments, the security profile is inadequate.
Adoption
Score: 2/10
BSV adoption is negligible by any meaningful metric. Daily active addresses are minimal. Transaction counts are inflated by data storage applications (weather data, social posts via Twetch) rather than genuine payment usage. The enterprise adoption narrative championed by Wright and Ayre has produced no major enterprise users. Most exchanges have delisted or restricted BSV trading. The developer ecosystem is tiny. Applications built on BSV (Twetch, HandCash, RelayX) have failed to achieve significant traction. The crypto community has comprehensively rejected BSV, and mainstream enterprise interest never materialized.
Decentralization
Score: 2/10
BSV is highly centralized across multiple dimensions. Mining is concentrated among a few pools, many linked to Calvin Ayre's CoinGeek. The massive block sizes mean only well-resourced entities can run full nodes, effectively excluding grassroots participation. The project's direction is controlled by Craig Wright and a small circle of supporters. The BSV ecosystem functions more like a corporate project than a decentralized network. The Bitcoin Association (now rebranded) operates as a centralized governing body. By every measure of decentralization — mining, nodes, governance, development — BSV fails.
Tokenomics
Score: 3/10
BSV inherits Bitcoin's 21 million supply cap and halving schedule, which provides the same deflationary tokenomics as BTC. However, the token's value proposition is fundamentally different — BSV argues its value comes from utility (cheap transactions, data storage) rather than store-of-value. The problem is that this utility has not materialized into demand. BSV's price has massively underperformed BTC, reflecting the market's rejection of the project. The fixed supply is a positive feature, but it's meaningless without demand-side drivers. Exchange delistings have reduced liquidity and market access.
Risk Factors
- Craig Wright association: The project is inseparable from Wright's discredited Satoshi claims and legal threats
- Exchange delistings: Multiple major exchanges have removed BSV, reducing liquidity
- 51% attack vulnerability: Low hash rate makes the chain insecure
- Community rejection: Virtually the entire crypto community has rejected BSV
- Centralization: Mining, nodes, and governance are highly centralized
- Legal risks: Wright's pattern of litigation creates ongoing uncertainty
- No developer ecosystem: Almost no developers building on BSV
- Enterprise adoption failure: The enterprise narrative has produced zero notable adopters
- Court rulings: Wright has been found to have forged documents supporting his Satoshi claim
Conclusion
Bitcoin SV is a cautionary tale about what happens when a technically viable approach is poisoned by its association with a discredited figurehead. Craig Wright's fraudulent Satoshi claims, pattern of legal intimidation, and confrontational approach have done irreparable damage to BSV's credibility. Courts have ruled that Wright forged evidence supporting his claims. The crypto industry has responded with comprehensive rejection — delistings, social ostracism, and zero developer interest. Even if you believe in big-block scaling (a legitimate technical position), BSV is the wrong vehicle for that thesis. The project is effectively captured by a small group of interests, its security is weak, and its adoption is negligible. This is one of the few projects where the honest assessment is simply: avoid.
Sources
- BSV blockchain explorer data
- CoinGecko market data
- UK High Court COPA v. Wright ruling
- Bitcoin mining hash rate comparisons
- Exchange delisting announcements
- BSV ecosystem activity metrics