>OK, that's true. BCH does believe in on-chain scaling.sure, but ABC and it's followers believe the pace of scaling should be determined by devs and their math calculations and/or interests at the time. as if anyone has ever been successfully able to mathematically model human behavior and it's incentives.personally, i consider this latest BCH donation rally to be a major failure as all it did was reinforce to the shitlord that whining works w/o actually scaling the protocol. what do you think he's learned from that? ---> more whining, more stalling, less scaling, MoMoney. wash, rinse, and repeat.otoh, BSV and it's followers believe in leaving the pace of scaling to market behavior. remove all limits and let the financial incentives go to work. and no, they've never believed that one can mathematically model human behavior and it's incentives. it's more like remove all limitations and get out of the way. the major involved economic players of miners, users, and merchants will figure out what blocksizes to mine, what hard caps to set, and what fees to charge and pay. not devs, who do not get paid by the protocol, who do not invest in the protocol, and who do not mine. some enlightened devs might to do these things but most likely to a pitifully small insignificant degree. and when done in the context of a blocksize cap, which sends the wrong signals to the above major economically involved players, its a non starter that stifles interest from major players and cripples the full expression of Bitcoin and what it was meant to be.