How about we keep it to very simple, very basic facts? A recent study showed that 88% of Japanese surveyed had heard of Bitcoin. Care to throw a careless guess about how many of them would have heard about Bitcoin Cash? I'm willing to bet that the most optimistic estimate wouldn't put even half of those who knew of Bitcoin to also know of Bitcoin Cash.
Within my own circle of associates outside crypto industry, perhaps fewer than half would have even heard of Bitcoin, let alone Bitcoin Cash. From the questions on social media already there is so much confusion with people mixing up Bitcoin Cash with Classix, XT, Bitcoin Gold, Segwit and Segwit2x. Why? Because amongst all the pretenders to the crown, no one can distinguish one from the other.
Think of the real world. To depose a recognised King, you'd need supporters of your own, you'd need people to come under your banner and declare you rightful king. How can a pretender be king if few have even heard of it?
Topic: Why is BCH not King? - page 5. (Read 1302 times)
BCH is a new digital currency that just started its existence and BTC is prevailing for all these years and with that prevailing, it is making new standards every day. These standards are set in the forms of the approvals for BTC acceptance into transaction community that was not connected to decentralized payment before. BTC has its followers, faithful people which are secure with the main coin. BTH has yet to make its own standards. Even if it rose very fast on the market it is still practically new.
Bitcoin is the only crypto covered in mainstream media (mostly). Most know cryptocurrency and ofcourse a lot of influential people want to keep it that way.
Presumably awareness and visibility play a part, together with the lack of real world use for BCH right now?
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
Many people are thinking that the people behind these might be just there to earn big amount of money. They are thinking that it might be a scheme, I don't blame them because they are just being cautious.
Also, they don't think that BCH will not be as strong as Bitcoin because it is just another alternative coin forked out of the real bitcoin. No matter what is the goal or the feature of that coin, as long as it is not bitcoin, for the people it is just an altcoin. People will always stick to the original, even though it is dumping, like what happened in the past few days, they will keep holding and not move to other altcoin.
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.
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.
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 most Bitcoin "investors" are fragile scared people who will not admit that buying into (any) cryptocurrencies is going to wreck their own economy when the bubble bursts. Therefore they also did not switch to BCH because to them BTC is now a religion they are clinging to in the hope that it will be their salvation.
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
Jump to: