Why is BCH not King?

[btcprospecter]

Most of the people in who have invested lately in bitcoin really only know of bitcoin and not alts. As they learn more about cryptos they will probably move to bch.

[1714026860]

1714026860

[1714026860]

1714026860

[1714026860]

1714026860

[1714026860]

1714026860

[1714026860]

1714026860

[BillCoin]

Why do you guys think we didn't move to BCH from BTC? Even though the segwitx2 was cancelled, BCH still seems to be Bitcoin 2.0

Why do you think that BCH should be bitcoin 2.0?

All bitcoin cash is, a simple copy of the bitcoin protocol with a block upgrade change( they change a simple parameter from 1MB to 2MB), does it mean that they need to get all the value that bitcoin got from being alive for years now?

Bitcoin cash is much less decentralized from the legacy bitcoin as most of it's miners are located in china and also the developers are chinese.
We all know that the chinese government has a hand inside and maybe will try to ruin the bitcoin by making bitcoin cash the crypto king.

[jacobmayes94]

Thing is i do notice fear among users here about any coin that may 'unseat' bitcoin. Yet the endless scaling debate went on for so long, while us users of the currency, the 99% not using forums mostly found transactions getting slower and slower, fees going up and up, all the while the endless debate and deadlock, hence BCH was born.

There have been years in which to solve this problem, or implement some breathing space. SegWit was one example of breathing space that we finally got, but 1MB block sizes simply will not do it, the transaction volume it can process is too small. Unless you wished to keep bitcoin as a 'store' of value, in which case an altcoin like BCH or Litecoin will take over for day to day currency use. I Want to be able to transact with my clients without endless high fees and slow confirmations, and Bitcoin simply does not fit that bill anymore but it can be used to store 'savings' for example. I won't pay a $10 TX fee if PayPal can do it for 50p, or Litecoin can do it for 0.01p.

Bitcoin is awesome, but it will be limited as a digital 'store' of value unless it scales, simple fact.

Centralization is also a big problem, the ASIC arms race and the sheer waste of power, will probably see some hybrid consensus system in the future, POW is simply too energy intense, the power grids of many countries will not handle it, and many hot climates the overheads of running a farm due to cooling issues and more expensive power is concentrating the mining power. Proof of stake will mean only those who are rich get richer, a hybrid system like proof of importance works better as a consensus mechanism in my opinion.

All those gigawatts of power as manufacturers will keep trying to make better ASICs to knock over others to 'stay in the game' and get more profit than those using older ASICs for a while until they upgrade, rinse, wash, repeat until we hit the end of the silicon road then it changes a bit

[BitcoinHodler]

they change a simple parameter from 1MB to 2MB),

they removed SegWit and a couple of other features such as RBF and changed the block size from 1 to 8 MB not 2.

There have been years in which to solve this problem, or implement some breathing space. SegWit was one example of breathing space that we finally got, but 1MB block sizes simply will not do it, the transaction volume it can process is too small. Unless you wished to keep bitcoin as a 'store' of value, in which case an altcoin like BCH or Litecoin will take over for day to day currency use.

the issue with SegWit and scaling is that unless a great number of people start using SegWit transctions, we won't see any change in this "breathing space" that you are talking about.

the block size is 1 MB as long as nobody uses SegWit. but if more start using it, the size will also increase. currently it is a little above 1 and with the highest at 1.5 MB. the maximum that it can go is 4 MB.

hopefully with the release of new wallet versions like Electrum 3+ people use SegWit more and we can see this scaling in action.

in fact this is one of the reasons behind SegWit2x, they said increase the normal block size to 2 MB so that even if no one uses SegWit we can have at least 2 MB blocks, but with that we had 8 MB total block size (hence the 2x thing)

[KrishaBitcoin]

Why do you guys think we didn't move to BCH from BTC? Even though the segwitx2 was cancelled, BCH still seems to be Bitcoin 2.0

Because bitcoin is most famous and most trusted digital currency than bitcoin cash. Bitcoin was already build a deep relationship among the people that it already faced many challenges and controversies then survived in which many people gain their trust to invest their money in bitcoin. In fact, ethereum is most potential than bitcoin cash.

[jacobmayes94]

I agree people need to use SegWit to take benefit from it. It is a small breathing space, but the endless debate and years in which to solve the problem before 51% consensus became harder to achieve made this problem very difficult. If bitcoin had become fully decentralized, achieving said scaling consensus may have been impossible as many don't upgrade their software.

Even with SegWit, its only a band-aid unless there are larger blocks, or the blockchain becomes a settlement layer, or some other solution, or bitcoin stays as a store of value and another cryptocurrency takes over for day to day transactions for starbucks.

1MB blocks W/O segwit = 7 transactions/second, 4200 transactions every 10 minutes.
Visa handles around 2000 / sec or so, 1200,000 transactions every 10 minutes.

See the sheer block size that would need to be implemented if you do the maths, and you see the magnitude of the problem. And imagine that being used as a currency all over the world. Bitcoin will not be that without some serious thinking and re implementation, or an alternative currency with BTC being kept as a store of value.

yes this is far into the future, but its best to get this sort of thing right early on, depending on what the usecase people intend it to be. A store of value, or digital cash for day to day transactions.

[leonair]

BCH will never be a king because it just came from Bitcoin and as other people says BCH is just supported by it's fans and they are just consist of several group of people with a primary goal of getting more money from new investors in crypto currency. I think this people are just envious from the people who got into bitcoin first and wants to do the same in the expense of other people.

People are already skeptical on investing in Bitcoin how much more on investing into something that is younger than Bitcoin with not that much credibility?

[BitcoinHodler]

See the sheer block size that would need to be implemented if you do the maths, and you see the magnitude of the problem.

i agree with some of the things you say but i am not yet convinced about either one of the solutions that are being proposed.

things are never as easy as just increase the block size and be  done with it. increase by how much? the 8 MB of BCH? if we assume your numbers are correct that is 8*7=56 tx/sec that is still nowhere near 2000.
so what will we gain with that kind of increase? we just made running a full node 8 times harder.

i say on chain scaling is needed but i ask myself by how much? we can not have 500 MB blocks which is nearly 2000 tx/sec
that is where Lightning Network comes in. although that is less centralized than on-chain scaling but it is a solution to get that much tx/sec.

[GoldenOrder]

The main reason probably is because BCH is nonsense. Anyone switching from BTC to BCH will lose in mid- and long-term.
The reasons for that are quite simple:

1) There haven't been any tests on how the whole network reacts to 8x higher blocksize. BCH didnt have any "big blocks" yet. There are currently at about 20-50 KB (!).
No considerations have been made that 8x bigger blocks mean 8x bandwith, storage and verification time is needed. So this may work out.. but it could also equally not work out and completely collapse.

2) An on-chain scaling is not scalable. It may be enough for the next 3-5 years. But whats next? Change blocksize to 16, 32, 64 MB ? If blocksize gets increased even more a lot of bandwith will be only
used to keep the BCH network alive. And additionally the verification time of one block will exceed the average time it needs to create a block. This will lead to extreme(!) centralisation, because only miner
with super computer will be able to verify the 'old' block and mine a new block before "standard" miner have verified the last block.

BCH is doomed to fail. Wheter it will happen when blocks reach 6-8 MB, or later on..
The only tangible scaling solution would be to add a second layer "onto the blockchain". Thats where the lightning network comes in play.

Wow man, you sure know your technical stuff. 

[jacobmayes94]

See the sheer block size that would need to be implemented if you do the maths, and you see the magnitude of the problem.

i agree with some of the things you say but i am not yet convinced about either one of the solutions that are being proposed.

things are never as easy as just increase the block size and be  done with it. increase by how much? the 8 MB of BCH? if we assume your numbers are correct that is 8*7=56 tx/sec that is still nowhere near 2000.
so what will we gain with that kind of increase? we just made running a full node 8 times harder.

i say on chain scaling is needed but i ask myself by how much? we can not have 500 MB blocks which is nearly 2000 tx/sec
that is where Lightning Network comes in. although that is less centralized than on-chain scaling but it is a solution to get that much tx/sec.

You see i can agree with this statement as well, which is why i had mentioned about some 'serious thinking and implementation' as larger blocks is not the 'best' solution either, BCH being a band-aid in the same way to the problem you talk about.

There is a careful balance to be struck, and I will admit, I have little clue as to what could be the best solution, simply increasing block size to approach that level isn't viable for the reasons we both stated, off-chain solutions have their own problems but are a potential possibility, like the lightning network.

I am unsure how this will play out in the long term, of course and that is if BTC is to be used as a currency, not a 'store' of value, in which case smaller blocks will suffice. Basically its picking the road it will go down.

Most of the endless 'bitcoin forks' have not put enough effort into this problem, but are merely an attempt to play games with money, Bitcoin Gold proposed ASIC resistance, yet had an insane premine

It is curious to see how this problem will be solved, it is no easy problem to solve. Ethereum will have the same problem re. how many smart contracts can run as they all use the entire network nodes to execute each piece of code.

The blockchain has changed the world, now it needs to scale

Often backlogs of transactions are 'caught up' during quiet times, but when used heavily daily, 'quiet times' may become non-existent and thus there would be a constant 'defect'

[AgentZero23]

Most of the people in who have invested lately in bitcoin really only know of bitcoin and not alts. As they learn more about cryptos they will probably move to bch.

Even if they have the knowledge about cryptocurrencies. They will choose to invest in BTC. Because it's the main cryptocurrency and trusted by many investors.

[tree1100hn]

BCH has its own advantage of confirming speed, confirming slower than the BTC network, which is not related to his value, and now BTC is a high-value asset class and is favored by many IFCs. As for the a few days before the skyrocketing, you can be seen as a retaliation for people underestimating BCH.

[hasmukh_rawal]

First things first, Bitcoin cash is a scam coin. Everybody knows that since the moment it was created after forking Bitcoin it was pumped and then dumped hard. While it is normal for a coin to pump and dump at the beginning of its launch BCH was pumped more than one time.
It was also used as a weapon against Bitcoin to manipulate its price, which effected the mid level traders very much because of its hard dump.
How can such a coin become a king when BTC is here.

[Spendulus]

Why do you guys think we didn't move to BCH from BTC? Even though the segwitx2 was cancelled, BCH still seems to be Bitcoin 2.0

Bitcoin and and bcash have completely different views for the future. Bitcoin is evolving as a digital commodity, and bcash is just trying to pursuit the new payment method option. Bitcoin is way ahead of every other cryptocoin out there, if we talk about the digital commodity path. Institutional money is cumming to the market, so bitcoin is on it's way to become a new asset in Wall Street. No other coin is getting any attention from big investors, like BTC is. Except for maybe ethereum, but for completely different reasons, since ether works more as a platform to invest in "start ups".

As for bcash, like I said, is completely focused in being a form of payment, so it's not really competing with bitcoin. Is actually competing with dash, or monero, and to be honest I would prefer any of these two in comparison to bcsh. So for me, the only reason we see bcash this high, when we compare it to dash for example, is because it is taking advantage of the "bitcoin name".

As for technology, it is ahead of bitcoin right now, in terms of transactions, but again that is not important for BTC right now, because it is evolving as "digital gold" and not a payment option. In the future, the Lightning network will be a much better option for scalability than the block increase, so bcash will continue to struggle, and BTC will be able to move as a well establish digital asset, to a form of payment.

For me, this is the reason why bcash is not king, and never will be, and I still think it will probably fail as a form of payment, when compared to the other options out there.

Reasons why bitcoin is king don't matter if fees are so high that competition rushes in. Now it's here.

[vv181]

Most of the people in who have invested lately in bitcoin really only know of bitcoin and not alts. As they learn more about cryptos they will probably move to bch.

Even if they have the knowledge about cryptocurrencies. They will choose to invest in BTC. Because it's the main cryptocurrency and trusted by many investors.

Agree, Bitcoin and its community are ideologically committed to supporting something close to its original design. Bitcoin is the root of the digital currency, it's kinda hard to see a technology who started the digital currency revolution to be replaced or abandoned. even though there is an attempt to replace it, the early investor is kept loyal to bitcoin. The problem is a people that are new to a cryptocurrencies scene, they didn't know well everything so they get easily FUD and wondering which is the real bitcoin. that's is why any bitcoin fork is kept sustainable until now and the greedy miners, they only think about profit so, in my opinion, bitcoin is flawed since bitcoin cash created it allows miners to flip-flop between any coin so it detains the bitcoin development.

[heureca]

Why do you guys think we didn't move to BCH from BTC? Even though the segwitx2 was cancelled, BCH still seems to be Bitcoin 2.0

Mostly it depends on miners - currently the majority of miners vote for BTC. At the same time BTC is like a gold or invesment tool now. So investors are interesting in BTC popularity but not the BTC value as criptocurrecny.

[audrey12]

It is simply because none of this alts were able to provide a good reason for them to replace bitcoin in the market also people were able to put their trust over bitcoin and that's difficult to replace. As long as the demand and market of bitcoin continue to succeed people will go over bitcoin and will remain loyal to this currency other will just be an option for a short term investment with a little percentage of income were used

[freebutcaged]

No apparent reason, as it seems by many newbies nowadays mate, the long version of it is boring, short version is the obvious reasons, Asicboost is

Still active on Bch, mining difficulty was manipulated to attract miners under false pretence , honey to trap the bears.

[freightjoe]

mining difficulty was manipulated to attract miners under false pretence , honey to trap the bears.

that is the same with Bitcoin

[jagdeepjd]

Why do you guys think we didn't move to BCH from BTC? Even though the segwitx2 was cancelled, BCH still seems to be Bitcoin 2.0

BCH is faster and cheaper now because it doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of traffic BTC has to cope with. Bitcoin core are 100% on the right track, they have Segwit so it can scale and still keep the network secure. Bigger blocks are not the answer right now. Once Segwit adoption improves Bitcoin will be ready for the future. BCH is Bitcoin 2010. BTC is Bitcoin 2017.