The biggest problem with BoostPoW is that it infects other …

lucky for you all these "projects" are hobby toys at best

It does that because it's a stable strategy. That means everyone is better off using it. It is more beneficial to follow the strategy I am teaching than not to follow it. You cannot stop benefit.

How does BoostPow work?

No..it's an elegant theory and inexperienced scientists often fall in love with their theories. Unfortunately, elegant wrong theories are contagious.

If it's not a stable strategy then you don't need to worry about it.

I'm not worried. I'm just warning people because it's the right thing to do. People are free agents.

Segwit breaks the BTC protocol (along with many other things).

BoostPOW is a service offered to the market. If it works, great. If not, what's the problem?

There will plenty of BSV projects. Many will fail. The best will succeed.

how did segwit break anything?

for sure segwit broke my heart

Segwit is also a "solution" that solves nothing. It's a tax on businesses that have to expend energy to implement it. BoostPoW is like this also for businesses that implement it. For lousy upvote results, they'll lose a lot of potential revenue.

It breaks the chain of digital signatures that defines bitcoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY&feature=youtu.be&t=6m40s

https://decrypt.co/31463/bitcoin-segwit-bug-fix-could-lock-wallet-users-out-funds

SW was pushed as a substitute for increasing blocksize, stalling scalability efforts. BTC is maxed out as a result.

SW makes the software work contrary to the way originally designed (by reinterpreting the way ANYONECANSPEND addresses work). this may or may not lead to attacks, but is certainly not proper programming practice for enterprise production code.

Thats a fair answer but again what did it "break" specifically? BTC chugs along just fine since 2017
Theres some small bugs here and there like the recent thing but thats not "broken" fundamentally
Segwit was primarily a malleability fix. it's done it.

malleability was never a bug to be fixed. there is no problem with malleability (unless you want to build something like LN, which by definition is not bitcoin, or you want to use it as an excuse cover up a theft, which is what MTGOX did.)

BSV malleates. kein problem.

It, like all soft forks, are essentially malware. They would break consensus if not for code that lies to the nodes and tells them to accept invalid txns. Segwit uniquely makes BTC unable to glean development value from any non-Segwit experimentation.

for example removing P2SH using a softfork (lol..) was and is damaging to BSV as we lost BitGo for example and with it many exchanges

I get it. Short term pains, with non-obvious immediate benefits. The fact that Core’s miners have protected the chain makes the attack vectors no less valid.

But what did it break?

Im looking at this after 3 years. Segwit FUD was well.. FUD.

besides BTC doesnt want anything from non segwit alts