BSV Case Study: CryptoFights

As I mentioned yesterday, this post actually germinated from one I started a month ago however ended up rewriting and then splitting it in two, all as a result of a new product or app or service, whatever you want to call it being released – CryptoFights.

CryptoFights is a good example of the sort business model that blockchain can create, with a specific business model called ‘Play & Earn’ which is an evolving industry where it is even possible to make a small living from*. This is a game were nerds build and develop a Dungeons & Dragons style ‘champion’ that they use to battler other nerds ‘champions’ for the opportunity to win prizes.
(if you live in the Philippines).

The ‘Play & Earn’ business model has been around for some time, and the largest player have game economies running to the $100m of dollars. BJW will be excited because the largest of all the operators in this field is currently run on regular old normal databases, however CryptoFights is one of the first to be released on a blockchain.

Now the interesting thing about the prizes that you win ‘Play & Earn’ games is not only you can win a chunk of your opponents ‘wager’ in fighting you, but occasionally you can also win prizes like epic swords, wands, daggers – nerdy D&D stuff. These items are tradeable on market places, with the difference being they cannot be copied, and if stolen they can be traced.

But the most interesting thing of all is that they contain embedded BSV which if you tire of playing CryptoFights you can forgo selling your ‘sword & shields‘ for whatever premium you might be able to obtain on a market, and essentially ‘melt’ the prize down back into raw BSV to spend elsewhere.

Within the space of a month CryptoFights now accounts for for more than 40% of all the transactions taking place on BSV:

…and what did this sudden surge in transaction levels, that took it to comparable levels as ETH actually do to the transaction cost on BSV? Nothing, they didn’t break a sweat on the median transaction, which remain has remained at $0.00024 or around 250th of a cent. The Minimum transaction fee available on BSV is around 1/2 a sat. This works out at 0.00000075 of a dollar or 7500th of a cent.

By the way, CryptoFights was originally planned and developed to be launched on Ethereum, but ETH simply couldn’t handle the volume of trades or the fees, nor could the CryptoFights developers tolerate the constant developer updates in in ETH. Had CryptoFights been launched on ETH, then it would have completely crippled the network alla the “crypto kitties” fiasco, or more recently “Stoner Cat’s” which has again sent the transaction cost on ETH soaring to the double digits (in dollars not cents). Again – Ethereum CAN’T scale.

CryptoFights was released as a Beta back at the start of July and is now generating OVER half a million microtransactions daily, resulting in the amount of on chain activity and transaction level to sky rocket:

Note that the above chart is a Logarithmic chart. The linear increase is reduces the competing versions of Bitcoin to a flat line.

But this biggest impact is that the sky rocketing number of Yesterday alone it provided BSV miners with around $2,500 in revenue that was associated with transaction fees, not mining reward. The result has to be single handedly pull BSV’s mining/fee reward to nearly above 1%…. meaning miners now earn 2.5% of their daily revenue from fees as opposed to block rewards. For blockchains to succeed in the long term this will have to rise to 100% as the bootstrapping block rewards slowly fade away:

And what about fees? Surely they have sky rocketed if the fee component of the total mining reward has increase? Actually they were virtually unchanged. Essentially CryptoFights doubled the number of transactions taking place on the BSV network and the median fee barely budged, remaining at $0.00024 or around 250th of a cent.

This is how, in my honest opinion, BSV will ultimately end up winning. Cryptofights is just a single application and it is seamlessly generating nearly 500k transactions a day by itself, yet in comparison to other ‘Play to Earn’ gaming platforms it is still small fry, larger ‘play to earn’ gaming platforms have economies turning over hundreds of millions of dollars, and if ported across would be generating millions of transactions a day. There are already several other competitors either on BSV or moving to BSV in order to compete in the ‘Play & Earn’ space – Peergame is another such example.

The rise in transaction volumes is finally starting and with it the economics and incentives for mining and transacting on this chain are going to start to become impossible to ignore…. this is what I will look at with the next blog post I’m working on. How this rising transaction volume will change the economics of mining.

4 4 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Since you want comments, all this post says is:
“Look, you can do a thing with crypto”
that has previously been done more successfully without.
It doesn’t say why it’s a good idea, what benefits it gives or anything else.

Can it support 10,000 games like this?
Why would you want to clutter up the blockchain with this garbage forever anyway?
I’m sure you could run candycrush with a backend on the blockchain but why would you?

The one advantage I see this gives is the same as the one crypto exchanges operating purely in crypto have. It is much easier to defraud and run away with the proceeds than if tied to more conventional infrastructure.


Remember how you complained about unjustified claims being made by me…

blockchain will never be cheaper or more efficient than conventional alternatives, it BY DEFINITION requires you to do more than just store the data.
A massive blockchain is no more secure and permanent than any other centralised storage system, as you continually point out you just have to trust the people running it.

Cheap and permanent does not need to be a public blockchain. private will be cheaper.
These companies would not have to be “using iron mountain” who do you think stores all your bank transactions? Your tab bets? Your online poker winnings?

You don’t need a blockchain to pay people. In fact if, as you argue, it’s no good as a store of value why would anyone want to be paid in it?


Could it be that Iron Mountain are just trying to get a “product” out there and be on the blockchain bandwagon?

so when clueless bigcorp CEO asks his IT guys “have we investigated blockchain technology to protect and optimise our data?”

the it guys can say “oh yes, our data provider has deployed blockchain technology that minimises downtime and maximises flexibility and security!”

CEO says “oh, excellent! Well done!”


Probably yes, for most of them.

just like in the golden age of the railways, most rail companies ultimately went bust.

not because railways were a bad idea, themselves (they are great and continue to be very useful) but because there was only a couple of viable ways to run railways and make money….


It could be said of everything that jumped on the bandwagon,

The first thing that got the bandwagon going.(what could that be?)


the original and still the best 😉


You say that all the time. Can you justify that with actual arguments and facts, and pages from the white paper?

From literally the first page:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. 

And what you say constantly is that the miners will be trusted because…

That is not what the whitepaper says on even the first page.

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

Do you understand – sufficient security is gained through 5 or 6 commercial miners, competing with each other and risking the hundreds of millions of dollars they’ve invested in the system to process thousands of transactions a second.

You don’t even get past the first page of the whitepaper before going off the reservation


So there you go – for casual payments all that is needed for a trustless exchange is to examine the validity of the chain of signatures…. no third party or miner needed.

Miners are only needed when you are at risk of suffering a double spend, which means making a payment outside of your peer-to-peer network.

come on, Stewie! The risk of suffering double spend isn’t something that is only occasional, a fringe case.

it is ALWAYS.

you can’t read this but literally, as saying that digital signatures should typically be enough.

We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. 

that would be completely missing the point.

without the miners there is no blockchain, there is only a second-layer set of IOUs & similar.


I’m not even going to engage with him any more.
He argues that BSV is more faithful to “the white paper” while it contradicts the base assumptions in the introduction that the white paper requires.

He is clearly deliverately deceptive

acts do matter! that’s the most frustrating thing about interacting with some folks – they create so much false narrative and FUD, and confusion that’s it’s a large teams full time job to debunk and disprove! if we had less confusion, we’d have less drama.

The techniques he described in his article


And they aren’t your lines, they are a twitter post.

Can you get any fact right


You might want to read this

Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application. They are said to form a peer-to-peer network of nodes.

It has nothing to do with “knowing” and shows you either know nothing about computing or are deliberately deceptive.
Either way just give it up with the tech stuff and go back to personal attacks.


I know nothing about computing and networks.

but that “send to IP” thing seems to me like some kind of vestigial stump of something that might have been and it’s probably buried too deep in the past to be revived now.

on the other hand, nobody is stopping anyone from developing such a peertopeer system, so if it’s really a great thing, there’s a chance that it will someday come to life. If it can outcompete the significant vested interests that now dominate the crypto (and non-crypto) payment space.


have you learnt what p2p actually means yet, since you seem to be such a proclaimed expert?


I m not looking at a link, either put a valid argument here or just accept you are wrong


Nah cunt, I’m with bjw, yawn all ya want. Fuckin retard

stewies bitch

C’mon now, why would you expect stewie to know anything about what peer-to-peer means when he is writing article after article about peer-to-peer applications.

Or when he constantly tells others they don’t know what they are talking about?

Or my favourite, when he gets butthurt when people do exactly what he asks them to do and then complains about it.


 Iron Mountain, the world’s leading storage logistics company \

In your opinion, company trying to scam people with buzzwords in my opinion.


. Are you really going to question that? Geeze bjw if you doubt me, just go and look it up.

How about you follow your own advice instead of complaining I don’t provide links while you are using marketing drivel as evidence of technical facts.

You throw so much BS at the page I simply am not wasting my time looking it all up.

If you can’t beat em with facts, bafflem with bullshit, eh.


Given the number of times you completely contradict yourself, see below quotes from the article YOU linked me to, why would I believe anything you have to say.

Because you say trust me?
Credibility is earnt, or not as the case may be.


Lets do a fact check:

Cost savings – This is the most obvious benefit. Because blockchain transactions don’t require intermediaries, processes can be made more efficient and less expensive. There’s no need for auditors or legal professionals to validate the authenticity of information, so those costs come out of the process.

A miner, and a host of the blockchain is an intermediary, that needs to be paid. Anything requiring auditing will still require professional auditing, it’s a law thing.

Efficiency – Fewer people means faster turnaround. Transactions that might take days waiting for multiple sign-offs can be concluded in seconds.

How does changing the storage technology change the business process, what difference in numbers of people would be caused and how?

Security – The fewer participants there are in a transaction, less risk there is that something could go wrong. Handoff points are a prime vulnerability, and blockchain effectively eliminates them.

How does blockchanin eliminate them any more than any other tech? there is not “fewer participants, see above.

Flexibility – Any digital asset can use blockchain, including difficult-to-protect items like multimedia and email records.

Any digital asset can use any digital technology.

Competitive advantage – Companies in the intellectual property space – such as law firms and stock photo

Competitive advantage, steam engine? What does this even mean.

This sort of bullshit is why I just ignore your sources.


It is the same reason you effectively blocked my pathetic Troll Chad Thundercock – because as pathetic as he was, he kept getting the better of you, constantly running rings around you. Chaddles made you look like a right daft fool – so much so that it was easier to dismiss him by doing a code change to filter him out than letting the twerp continue to humiliate you.

You’re a fucking idiot if you think i did that, or that is the case. If that’s the best argument you’ve got you really should give it up.

I will expose your further hypocrisy in a second.

Weren’t you the one so butthurt by chad you had to edit his posts?

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

Evidence of what?


Again, I don’t have permission to post articles without adult supervision, I can’t edit posts, i can’t ban anyone.
Since you are god here you should know that.

YOU are the one who had to edit him cause your feelings were hurt.

So i ask again: Do you think you might be projecting?

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

I’m starting to think you and chaddles are the same person.

Either way, all y’all all are some sad deluded fucks. Neck up


I was going to point out all the bullshit again, but fuck it.
Knock yourself out.

Too lazy to provide any links, to close minded to accept any opinion other than his own, and too pig headed to even consider the possibility he might be wrong.

Do you think you might be projecting?
How many links in that bullshit 3 screen diatribe you just spewed out?
How much have you doubled down on advertising being a purveyor of truth?
And then you accuse me of doing what you did cause you got butthurt over chad saying you were a homo or whatever.


LOL I doidn;t ban him,
 Chad had you running all over the place, replying to every insult he threw, he dominated you.

Sound familiar?

A frankly I hope your wife dies, it would be a blessing for her to be rid of an arsehole like you

Last edited 2 months ago by bjw678

again you have to attack my character over and over but don’t even answer most of the technical questions you bring up.

why do you get so butthurt when people point out simple contradictory statements you are making, don’t you know you are making them?

And yes you are an areshole who deliberately direct the argument away from the facts because you know you can’t win that particular argument.

You are displaying that for everyone, which is me, peachy and you at this point and both me and peachy seem to think you are full of shit.

Has ANYONE defended your position?


So what does peer to peer mean again?
That you know all the participants in the network personally?


BSV is more true to the white paper you linked than btc but violates the principles established in the introduction of trustless that is THE DEFINING QUALITY of btc.

And others but that is more than enough to prove the point.

My opinions may appear unsubstantiated given your displayed lack of basic knowledge of the subject, but yours are outright contradictory.


And of course the article was so good it prompted

is this satire?


So is BSV more true to the whitepaper or not?
That is the position you repeatedly took until i pointed out the first page of the whitepaper you linked contradicted it.

You really had better stick with those personal attacks.


This post had so little actual content there was nothing to discuss, so we continued discussion of your previous posts just like you wanted.

And this is your usual response when confronted with the contradictions you specifically asked me to tell you about.

It’s not a contradiction because it doesn’t matter anyway even though i bought it up.


BSV merely aims to operate as a PUBLIC blockchain, un-owned or controlled by anyone, upon which commerce can take place.

I didn’t say the full blockchain would only be stored in one place, copies would exist and be stored at large commercial mining farms, of which there will probably end up being maybe 5 or 6.


Miners are only needed when you are at risk of suffering a double spend, which means making a payment outside of your peer-to-peer network.

You are always at risk of a double spend and there is no outside of the peer2peer network for the coins of the network. that is by definition the network,.


Ya Basta! Enough! This post has now achieved 100 comments.

I have published a new blog post for you to go to town on.

This was a blog post about a fucking example of a company and use case being run on BSV, and that it is being quite successful and while still only in Beta was generating nearly 500k transactions a day, and the BSV network didn’t even flex.

…and what did you want to talk about?

I didn’t want to talk, no one did. You asked me to come and continue dumping shit on you.


Are any of those contradictory in your oh so valuable opinion?


comment image


And yet you haven’t actually refuted any of the contradictions you asked for…


(You also have no sense of humour for failing to respond to Peachy’s whimsical post)

I thought I;d leave that to you by going to bed.
7 more posts seems you definitely did.

stu da cucksta

2 line loser? LOL, yet you two cucks are continually referencing me in your little bitch fight? Seems i live rent free in YOUR head …faggot

Lets not forget – on MB you had no admin tools at your disposal. All you could do was have a cry to DLS…you weak ass faggot

Last edited 2 months ago by stu da cucksta

cluttering up the blockchain? What kind of backwards-arse thinking is that? When the mining subsidies eventually disappear you better hope your blockchain is cluttered with fee paying transactions otherwise your blockchain is dead.


is this satire?


I’m good at sneering!


Then it’s a big yikes from me


And just to unbury it…

Because most of the links you provide have so many factual errors they make my head hurt. Or are for a company providing something I can’t even figure out that is clearly just fishing for funding.
I am not going to waste my time reading that trash.

If you can’t turn their content into something I can’t invalidate in a sentence or 2 that’s on you and them.
If you don’t understand it well enough to explain it, you might want to consider why you are listening to people with a vested interest and believing everything they say.

And it’s not a critique of a loose definition of a database. You are claiming the benefit blockchain provides is being a database, I am pointing out there are many database engines in existence that do that far better than a blockchain.
A person in front of a computer monitor that reads the request on screen, gets it out of a filing cabinet and types the answer requested back in fits the definition of a database. I wouldn’t use it to run a small business, let alone the entire world though.

provide additional references to which I get my views from.

And this is my biggest problem with your position. It doesn’t come from understanding the tech, and existing alternatives. It comes from people presenting compromised view points devoid of justification.
I get my “views” from decades of developing software commercially and having dug through the sourcecode for bitcoin to understand how and why things were done the way they were.

If I can think of a way to do whatever you are claiming is “THE” use case for your tech using pre-existing tech in a few minutes then you don’t have a killer app, and I don’t even need to understand the fine details of your particular chain to invalidate it.

Flat files(which is what a blockchain is in CompSci data structure terms) are not used for ANYTHING in software because they are ridiculously inefficient for everything, and a blockchain cannot be anything else because it’s integrity relies on every block being unchanged from the point of its creation and linking to the block after it chronologically.

Ultimately if you present a pile of marketing BS in front of me I’m going to nitpick all the holes in it, same as I pick the holes in the marketing BS the government is putting in front of me.


Making unsubstantiated claims while complaining about unsubstantiated claims is crying like a baby.
You don’t even offer opinions, you claim as fact things that are easily disproved. I cannot give you a degree in computer science in the comments section.

Please, let me be absolutely clear here, please point out the factual errors in the articles

I do, and you claim that they aren’t factual errors. Do you see the problem there.

bjw “Blockchains can’t be used as a database!”

blockchain can not be used efficiently as a database. You know what a strawman is? In fact I give you a starting point to investigate this for yourself above. Flat file. Do some research.

Give me your best article to nit pick and I will point the errors out. The problem is you won’t believe me, and I cannot teach you enough to change your mind.

Please, let me be absolutely clear here, please point out the factual errors in the articles – I want you to understand them.

See above, all the “facts” in the best evidence you can bring are clearly not true statements. The fact you can’t even work that out for yourself is why this is a pointless exercise.

Having no argument and saying, look other people are looking into this too is crying like a baby.

Guess what, amazon was looking into using drones for deliveries, now they aren’t because it is and was a ridiculous idea. Elon musk promised to deliver an electric truck 3 or 4 years ago and still hasn’t because it is and was a ridiculous idea. Claiming someone is looking into something is evidence of nothing other than they are looking into something.


Elon musk promised to deliver an electric truck 3 or 4 years ago and still hasn’t because it is and was a ridiculous idea. 

This makes me sad, because I want an electric truck.


physics says you can’t have a practical one. The energy density isn’t there.


Isn’t it the opposite?

if you can build an electric car (which needs to be relatively light, in order to be nimble & nice to drive), surely you can build a truck, because you’re freed from the lightness constraints.

a truck body can easily carry (or tow!) enough batteries to get the job done.


A car only needs to carry a person or 2.
A truck that uses 50% of it’s load capacity for batteries while also costing more than it’s competitors is not going to be practical, you need twice as many trucks, twice as many drivers, it will take a ridiculous amount of time to recharge, the problems go on and on.

And most trucks travel much further than a typical electric car travels.


Are the numbers that bad though?

back of envelope – a car might typically carry 60L of fuel and a big truck 600L, so 10x more.

a Tesla road car battery pack weighs about 500kg. So scaling up to a truck we’d have 5,000kg.

a truck might weigh 40T all up, so we’re looking at 12-15% being the batteries.

it’s a fair bit, but it’s not 50%. Could be competitive if there are 10% cost savings somewhere else (fuel? Maintenance? Preferential treatment for smog/carbon tax, etc)

Last edited 2 months ago by Peachy

Literally the first truck specs I found on google:

1650-2240L of fuel capacity.

The best case I can make for them not being competitive is that despite announcing and taking presale orders for the truck, tesla haven’t delivered.


different to what I googled. But looking further – bigass trucks like that would be hauling 60-100t (, so maybe can afford a few more tons of batteries.

On the other hand, multiplying out, 2000L of fuel is 15t of batteries, which seems like rather a lot.

maybe there’s a sweet spot somewhere for short-haul trucks? Or, more likely, battery energy density still needs to at least double 😖

Last edited 2 months ago by Peachy

Weigh 60-100T max with load. half that is probably empty weight.
15T of a 50T load capacity is significant.


I can definitely see benefit in using blockchain to make transfers between people. Provided, as you demonstrate, the transaction costs can be made close to negligible. It then allows people to trade without the parasites (banks, credit cards etc) getting a slice or determining who can trade with whom. An example that springs to mind recently was the efforts the financial maggots put it to stop people donating to wikileaks. Any system that removes undemocratic control over financial interactions has to be beneficial.
P.s. I know nothing about blockchain so everything I said many be entierly wrong.


Everything you wrote seems rigjt


But the tech stewie is promoting will be centralised and be easy for authorities to control so doesn’t actually provide that. It is the establishment, but cool because blockchain, even though that is what he calls out the truly trustless stuff as.


operated by a shadowy cartel who run and control it from a central location.

How many copies of this global blockchain can reasonably be stored? Whoever stores it, owns it.


I didn’t say the full blockchain would only be stored in one place, copies would exist and be stored at large commercial mining farms, of which there will probably end up being maybe 5 or 6.



I wanted to read all the comments but in the end I found this video and the rest is history:

Last edited 2 months ago by DjenkA

Fair call, although I did finally realise something useful.

Stewie has so little knowledge of computer software that it is completely pointless even trying to discuss it with him, which also makes any opinions he has on computer software so meaningless and obviously regurgitated from somewhere else that I am simply ignoring him in the topic from now on.