Fact! is Doge managed to outclass Bitcoin 7 times in a number of transactions
The number of transactions is quite bad estimator, because you can have transactions, which takes 100 bytes, and you can have transactions, which takes 100 kB. You can have a single-user transaction, and you can have a CoinJoin, or some batched transaction, involving hundreds of users. Should all of them be counted as "1 transaction = 1 transaction"?
A better estimate would be to count unique public keys and signatures, but it is harder to create a chart like that.
we are in 2024 and BSV chain still works despite all the mumbo jumbo about intergalactic CPUs needed to run it!
Do you have BSV node? Does your friend have it? People are whining on forum, that they don't want to run BTC full node, with 600 GB, and you want to tell them, that 10 TB is fine?
Of course, the network can work indefinitely, because as long as at least one node is willing to mine it, then it can still be alive and well, as long as people are fine with taking part in a centralized system. If you look at mining pools on BSV, it is pretty centralized, and seeing 51% on one of huge pools like TAAL is normal:
https://sv.coin.dance/blockshttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners#EfficiencyEfficiency
If you are OK with 10 or so individuals controlling the currency, then you can design a much better system than Bitcoin. For example, you can design a system using chaumean e-cash with the following properties:
20 independent entities are designated as signers.
As long as a majority of signers are honest, the system remains secure.
The system has perfect anonymity. The signers cannot know anything about the flow of money.
Transactions are instant, requiring only communication with the signers and a small amount of computation.
If you want to preserve the mining mechanism, you can create a simple proof-of-work block chain which simply determines the current signers and creates coins. Users of the system would look at the most recent blocks only to determine the public keys and IP addresses of the current signers, and then use the system as previously described.
This system would be better than Bitcoin in several ways. But the point of Bitcoin is to be decentralized, so Satoshi rejected this idea (which has been well-known for over 20 years) and created Bitcoin instead.
Which means, that you probably won't see chains like BSV "crashing". You see them "centralizing", and becoming ruled by "10 or so individuals" (because non-mining nodes will simply not exist, and even block explorers like blockchair will stop sharing that chain with users, so it will stop being audited by anyone).
Also, let's assume that you have some SPV node, and you notice a transaction like this:
https://mempool.space/testnet4/tx/914a6348ba832b79c631a6f70ea9e2c3e1e433ee0b90633d51e3fe1164c05dc0How do you want to make sure, that those 10k coins are not created out of thin air, without fully validating the chain? If only miners run full nodes, then future blocks can contain transactions like that, but creating coins not out of fees, but out of thin air. And no SPV node would validate it deeply enough to know, that some block, 123 blocks deeper, is invalid for some reason. And then, the coin will not collapse: it will be just more similar to the banking system, where you have to trust the issuer, instead of verifying the supply.