You can see the pattern clearly.
Whenever BCH shows up in Nostr with real usage — tipping, CashTokens experiments, peer-to-peer coordination — some BTC-maxi aligned spaces don’t debate it. They moderate it out.
That’s not a technical disagreement. That’s discomfort with a working alternative appearing in the same open field they claim to dominate.
Nostr was designed to be permissionless. No single authority should decide what ideas can exist there. Yet we still see relays quietly filtering, banning, or de-ranking BCH-related accounts once the activity becomes too visible or too effective.
Why? Because BCH breaks a narrative that’s been comfortable for years:
- That “Bitcoin can’t scale for payments”
- That on-chain usage is “dead”
- That tipping, social money, and microtransactions are unrealistic
Then BCHNostr shows up doing exactly that — in public, in real time, without custodians.
So instead of engaging with it, the easier reaction is to label users as bots, spam, or “coordinated actors.” It’s a psychological defense more than a technical critique.
Meanwhile, the reality is simple:
people are just using money that actually works for small, fast, cheap transactions — and building social layers on top of it.
If that threatens some narratives, it says more about the fragility of those narratives than about BCH or Nostr.
BCH doesn’t need permission. It just needs usage.
Replies (6)
When they start calling us names you know they already lost the plot. BCH Nostr exposes how convoluted lighting is to use. When presented with an option which one will users gravitate to? Easy peer to peer transactions or some garbage where you have to open channels and manage liquidity.. no one is going to do that!! They are very scared!
Yeah, this is where it gets obvious.
If something is truly easy and works, you don’t need to over-explain it or defend it with layers of complexity. People just use it.
BCH is simple: send, receive, done. No channels, no liquidity management, no extra steps just to make basic payments work.
So when people react by calling names or trying to shut down the conversation, it usually says more about their discomfort with that simplicity than about BCH itself.
At the end of the day, users don’t pick ideology. They pick what actually works with the least friction.
Exactly, simple and easy to use wins every time. If a concept or solution is too difficult to implement it means it’s not a good idea. BTC fails that test every single time.
They know L1 BTC doesn’t scale on it own but instead of owning that fact they hide behind the SOV narrative that not even in the whitepaper and bury their heads in the sand. They can’t simple wish this problem away.
They are very ignorant of human nature. Nobody is going to voluntarily pay high fees when they don’t need to. That is a simple fact. So there goes there security budget when people flee BTC. Plus lighting takes away revenue that would have went to miners instead transactions are being settled off-chain.. BTC has no answers on how to scale to meet global demand without some custodian. How is this any different than what we have now with fiat banking?
Yeah, that’s basically the core tension.
People don’t voluntarily choose friction in the long run. If something is harder to use and more expensive for the same basic job, users route around it — that’s just how human behavior works.
The issue isn’t that BTC “can’t scale” in theory, it’s that in practice scaling gets pushed into layers that add complexity and trade-offs that ordinary users end up absorbing indirectly: custody, routing, liquidity, fees at different points in the stack.
And once usage moves off-chain or into custodial setups, you do end up with a system that starts to resemble the traditional model it originally wanted to replace — intermediaries, gatekeeping, and trust assumptions reintroduced through design constraints.
Meanwhile BCH is taking the opposite approach: keep the base layer usable, keep transactions cheap enough for normal activity, and let people interact directly without needing infrastructure knowledge just to send money.
That difference matters because users don’t adapt to ideology — they adapt to what feels like cash in real use.
Yes, BCH is different because it stuck to the original purpose of being actual cash for daily use. It keeps fees low, transactions fast, and blocks big enough so anyone can send and receive without waiting or paying extra. Bitcoin moved away from that and became expensive and slow, turning into an asset mainly for large institutions and funds. While BTC’s future looks like higher fees and even inflation if the supply cap changes, BCH continues to protect access and freedom so regular people can actually use it, not just hold it.
Interesting perspective
