I have very conflicted thoughts on BCH so if someone could straighten them out I would really appreciate it. Half of me believes that BCH can change the world if it is adopted as a global currency, but the other half of me is very suspicious about its creation. I understand that it was forked from BTC because of the segwit issue. I learned that when a new coin is created from a fork, that all the previous coins that were unaccounted for or lost are created again in the form of the new forked coin. Am i correct? Forgive me for the noob question but I am just that, a crytpo noob. Furthermore, I have been told that CSW owns more than one million BCH created from the BTC that was unaccounted for during the fork and that he was asked by developers to burn it but he refused (again i dont know if this is true or not im just stating what i was told) , this makes me very suspicious of BCH. This is all so confusing, will someone please clarify for me if this is all just a scheme to dump on people.
A good friend of mine who has been in crytpo since the beginning explained it to me like this: BCH is just BTC without segwit and with bigger blocks, it still uses the SHA-256 algorithm so in terms of using it as a currency it is better, but security wise it is still the same.
Again I apologize for being all over the place, I am a noob and I have a lot of questions to ask.
The BCH & BTC chains have the same history before BCH did a hardfork. Everyone who had BTC coins at that moment also had the same amount of BCH. I have not heard that CSW was asked to burn his coins. However, if this is true, why should he be asked to burn his BCH coins? No one else was asked to burn their BCH. This may be related to CSW making claims in the past that he is Satoshi, the creator of Bitcoin. So far CSW has made no conclusive proof that he is indeed Satoshi.
Also, BCH is not just BTC without segwit. It has several modifications to the code. 1st modification is that it added replay protection. Each transaction has a flag added to the signature, so that the transactions do not get played again on the BTC chain and vice versa. Also, BCH has a difficulty adjustment on each block, instead of a difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks. There are other modifications as well and in November, Bitcoin ABC is implementing a hardfork which will introduce additional changes.
Furthermore, at the moment, BCH is not as secure as BTC because it has less hashrate. That means it is cheaper to implement a 51% attack on BCH than BTC. However, this can change if miners simply start switching their hashrate to BCH instead of BTC. This may happen if BCH is used much more, since the total amount of the fees the miners collect each block could exceed what they could get on the BTC chain. People may start finding BCH more attractive since the bigger blocks make each individual tx less expensive.
BTC is trying to solve the limited transaction problem by moving the transactions off chain through the Lightning Network. Although, someone could transact very cheaply, this can only happen once the have opened a channel. The act of opening a channel must be performed on chain, and could end up being very expensive if the BTC blocks start filling up. I suppose normal folks could use a gateway which would open up several channels at once using only one tx, and be slightly cheaper per individual. In my opinion, it seems like a rather convoluted and less secure way to transact. I could be wrong since I cannot really make much sense out of it.
