The four most famous international exchanges:

Binance INTL	OKX INTL	Gate.io INTL	Huobi INTL
China Line　APP DL	China Line　APP DL	China Line　APP DL	China Line　APP DL

Note: The above exchange logo is the official website registration link, and the text is the APP download link.

On July 24, 2019, Bitcoin SV carried out a protocol upgrade, and the block limit was adjusted to 2
GB. In the stress test, blocks of 180MB and 210MB were generated. During the upgrade process, Bitcoin SV risk-free events occurred and also set a record for the largest block in the current blockchain.

Looking back at the "big block" road from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash to Bitcoin SV, combined with the average number of daily on-chain transactions of the three, from 1MB to 2
The expansion of GB does not seem to be that necessary.

1. The past of Bitcoin’s hard fork

Since the birth of Bitcoin’s genesis block in January 2009, Bitcoin has maintained a single block limit of 1 MB. And in Bitcoin
In the early days of the network, the number of transactions was small, and the actual size of the block was far less than the upper limit of 1 MB. However, at that time, someone had already discovered the potential hidden danger, that is, under the premise of maintaining the block interval of 10 minutes, Bitcoin
The maximum TPS is only 7 (processing 7 transactions per second), which is far from meeting actual needs. This hidden danger comes with Bitcoin
The increase in the number of addresses in the network has become more and more obvious. The increase in mining fees and the slowness of transaction confirmation have forced developers and miners to jointly find possible expansion methods.

The Bitcoin Core team proposed solutions such as Segregated Witness and Lightning Network, and some miners headed by Wu Jihan even supported the expansion of large blocks. The battle for expansion solutions between developers and miners intensified, and finally in
The Hong Kong Consensus was formed in 2016 - "Mainly deploy Segregated Witness and Lightning Network, while the block size is expanded to 2 MB". However, the Hong Kong Consensus and the 2017 New York Consensus broke down successively, eventually leading to the 2017
Bitcoin's hard fork on August 1, 2018 resulted in the "Prince" Bitcoin Cash (BCH) with a block limit of 8 MB. in 2018 5
In March, Bitcoin Cash underwent a system upgrade and the block limit was raised to 32 MB.

By the end of 2018, Bitcoin SV, represented by “Satoshi Satoshi” Craig Wright, was dissatisfied with the upgrade content of Bitcoin Cash.
The team claimed to restore some of the opcodes set by Satoshi Nakamoto, and conducted a hard fork on November 15. The Bitcoin SV block limit was set to 128 MB, and then in 2019
Upgraded to 2 GB in July.

2. Current status of BTC, BCH and BSV

Today, even the Bitcoin SV system has been running for nearly a year, and BTC, BCH, and BSV, which have chosen different expansion methods and different block limits, have also produced huge ecological differences.

From the current point of view, the benefits brought by the large blocks of BCH and BSV are only reduced handling fees and theoretically high TPS. However, to achieve theoretical TPS requires building a project ecosystem, and from ATM alone
Judging from the deployment of machines, Bitcoin is undoubtedly the most ecologically complete among the three projects.

Judging from the use of blocks and the number of nodes, although Bitcoin has the smallest block upper limit, as the beginning of the blockchain and the value scale of digital currency, the number of online full nodes on its network remains above 9,000.
The number of transactions on the 24 H chain is about 281,000; while the number of Bitcoin Cash online full nodes is only about 1,400, which is 1/6 of the Bitcoin network, nearly 24 H
The transaction volume on the chain is about 42,000 times, which is about 1/7 of the Bitcoin network; the number of online full nodes of Bitcoin SV is only about 500, which is about 1/7 of the Bitcoin network.
On 1/16, the transaction volume on the chain in the past 24 hours was approximately 121,000, which is approximately 1/2 of the Bitcoin network.

From the perspective of network security to prevent 51% computing power attacks, Bitcoin’s computing power remains at around 80 EHash/s, and Bitcoin Cash’s computing power remains at 2
EHash/s, about 1/40 of the Bitcoin network; Bitcoin SV’s computing power remains at about 1 EHash/s, about 1/40 of the Bitcoin network
1/80.

Judging from the current block usage, BTC maintains a block usage of about 80%, and ETH, known as Blockchain 2.0, has a gas limit usage of 80%.
up and down. BCH and BSV are both less than 1%, especially after the BSV block size limit is expanded to 2 GB.

The author believes that BSV expanded the block limit from 128 MB to 2 when the project ecology is imperfect and the number of on-chain transfers is small.
GB, neither necessary nor reasonable. From the perspective of necessity, the block limit before expansion has exceeded the demand for on-chain transfers and transactions, and transaction fees are already at a low level. BSV
What needs to be done more is to expand the ecology and practical applications on the chain.

From the most pessimistic perspective, when BSV
After being fully mined, if its on-chain ecology and practical applications still do not improve, then the low mining fees and the sparse number of on-chain transactions will not be able to support the mining costs of full nodes, forcing some full nodes to leave, resulting in further decline in network computing power. decline. In this way, 51%
Computing power attacks will become easier, threatening the security of the BSV network.

From a more optimistic perspective, if an exchange or project party initiates BSV-related activities, or other factors cause the number of transactions on the BSV chain to surge, then BSV
The block upper limit can bear the growth of transaction demand, but this also means that the possibility of large blocks will increase. in BSV
When the number of full nodes is small and the performance difference is large, it will be difficult to synchronize large blocks. Some nodes will be stuck on the block and cause offline. Mining will also be inconsistent due to the difference in synchronization time. Fair play, that's not a good thing for the network. as
The stress test of BSV's upgrade produced a 210 MB block, causing many nodes to go offline because they were stuck on the block.

In the author’s opinion, BSV’s large block limit is similar to other million-level TPS blockchain projects. In the absence of on-chain ecology and practical applications, the theoretical high TPS
It cannot hide the dismal transaction numbers and usage rates. Even if the cross-chain technology of the public chain matures in the future, its on-chain activity will not increase due to the sharing of on-chain ecology. On the contrary, it may decline due to the Matthew effect.

To sum up, large blocks can reduce transaction fees, but if large blocks do appear, it may also be able to screen out some full nodes with less good performance. However, when commercial implementation and ecological construction are not yet complete, , reducing the number of full nodes in the network will harm the security of the network. From this point of view, BSV
The large blocks are actually not that necessary.