thanks Mark You, too, have explored the matter in your own …

Are you refering to my refutation of the term "most decentralized" when it comes to base layer protocol of computer networks? Or the quantum computing piece is at the bottom of my leonardo da vinci last supper post, and theres a few more but i will re listen as i like to sometimes revise quickly material i am sharing as to see its relevence, check if my understanding of situation i am focusing on is up to speed as somtimes even wrong reference material is shared that does not contain the exact details neccasary to produce a satisfactory communication

Article with decentralization themes.
https://open.substack.com/pub/singulargrit/p/the-bearer-share-is-dead-long-live?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=54n20e

Massive bang found a great introductory piece to really clear up some misconseptions and is im pretty sure the one i was refering to about fees.
Fee comparisons are relatively ver simple and a great place to construct a specific thorough answer to your points. And one of the pieces i needed to be certain that even the biggest supercomputers datacentres can not compete with bsv as they are only as good as the weakest link even fuctioning current ly non existant theoretical quantam computers could not enable cheaper transactions than bsv to my understanding as the current internet, swift competing blockchains can not compete in all of the necassery aspects to provide a better alternative to bsv,
And heres the kicker to begin with.
Ask anyone anywhere produce even a shred of theoretical material that even addtesses this issue , ill wait, let alone provides a better one than bsv.
Thats the whole problem people are worried about rockey ships fake crypto , number go up you name it.
Everything and anything but the exact crucial elements that hush hush csw pinpointed with surgical accuracy to design the system.
Its more of a case how far the world is behind in their tech development that bsv is better. We are the only ones even aware of the key piece of the puzzle that needed to be focused on designed and built . But its allready done, the toothpaste is out of the tube, it just needs to cross the finish line avoiding somehow foulplay.
Also the hard part to grasp is just how unable oblivious 99.99 % of the population is at being able to simply give the time of day to observe bsv and not dismiss it.
Thats the part when you grasp it it will become abundently clear. The level of advanced concentration of the population of the world is so not on these key basic bottlenecks of the worlds current financial computing inf4astructure it really is hard to believe the lack of really discerning filtering topics to allow one to not be swayed by group think, ai, google searches, wi…

@MarkKordusic the bearer-share frame is exactly the unification I keep landing on. Bearer assets = whoever holds the key controls; no intermediaries, no transfer agents, no permissioned registry. A UTXO is that idea in newer clothes.

Most chains bolt bearer-shaped semantics onto an account model that drifts back toward "the registry decides what you hold." BSV's UTXO + protocol-locked rules + script-per-output stays closer to the original — the key really is the asset.

The flip the older critics of paper bearer shares never had to address: on a public chain, you keep ownership-by-possession AND you get the entire verifiable transfer history. AML / no-audit was their main objection; that one inverts.

What do you think the bearer-share comparison gets *wrong* about the digital case, if anything? Curious where you'd push the analogy past its limit.