𐤊 Cryptomb 𐤊

Oh boy, this is going to be a long post. You say Kaspa “can’t do what BCH can do,” then list features that are either already live or scheduled, and end with “I don’t want to waste my time.” Translation: no actual argument. But since I apparently have time to waste, I'll run through your claims and then do a quick side by side of BCH and Kaspa. Sound good? Good. ----- First, the things Kaspa is claimed to “lack”: - Smart contracts: Kaspa already has smart contracts via L2 (Kasplex), with more coming (Igra zkEVM on L2, vProgs for L1 settlement logic). - Tokens: Tokens exist on both Layer 1 and Layer 2. - Multisig: Scheduled for activation with the May hard fork. - Covenants: Also scheduled for the May hard fork. - Data embedding: Kaspa supports arbitrary payloads and data attachment in blocks. Since Crescendo, this enables richer transaction metadata, comparable to what BCH supports. - “Decentralized development via CHIP”: A formal process does not equal decentralization. BCH’s CHIP system relies on a small proposal board to gate changes. Kaspa development is open, permissionless, adversarial, and peer-reviewed, closer to Bitcoin’s model, with no central committee approving or rejecting protocol evolution. As for your final point, it has nothing to do with code, incentives, or architecture. Kaspa has no CEO, no foundation, no VCs, no premine, and no privileged class. Just miners, node runners, developers, and holders. Same as Bitcoin. Same as BCH. Dismissing a permissionless PoW network based on a developer’s nationality rather than its design isn’t a technical argument. It's prejudice. ----- Now, BCH vs Kaspa (because I have the time): Scaling - BCH scales by increasing block size, which raises bandwidth, storage, and operational costs over time. - Kaspa scales via a blockDAG, allowing parallel blocks and high throughput without inflating node requirements. Consensus Model - BCH remains a single chain Nakamoto design with inherent serial bottlenecks. - Kaspa generalizes Nakamoto Consensus to parallel block production, removing the bottleneck entirely. Security vs Throughput - BCH trades decentralization pressure for throughput by pushing larger blocks. - Kaspa increases throughput without shifting security assumptions or excluding verifiers. Finality & UX - BCH relies on slow, probabilistic confirmations and social conventions for “instant” payments. - Kaspa delivers seconds level, protocol enforced finality at the base layer. Decentralization Trajectory - BCH trends toward fewer, more professional node operators as blocks grow. - Kaspa prunes by default and keeps node operation accessible to individuals. Incentives - BCH inherits an incentive model not designed for sustained high throughput. - Kaspa’s incentives are explicitly designed for high block rates and parallelism. Long-term - BCH scales by continually turning the same knob harder: bigger blocks, more bandwidth, more storage, higher operational costs, which inevitably reduce the number of people who can independently verify the chain. - Kaspa scales by design and still has significant headroom: throughput increases come from parallel block production and DAG ordering, not from forcing ever larger blocks or rising hardware requirements. ----- In short, BCH optimizes an old model. Kaspa evolves the model itself. You claim to dismiss Kaspa because of missing features, but those features actually exist or very close to existing. You’re actually dismissing it though because it shows that peer to peer cash can scale without compromising decentralization. And that’s the part you don’t want to spend time engaging with. I suggest you actually do some studying.