that happened in 2017 when, after years of heated and polarising argument, the Bitcoin community as was failed to come to a consensus on what we wanted Bitcoin to be.
BTC: Some people wanted long-term low on-chain transaction throughput which to them was an acceptable cost to mitigate what they saw as substantial risks of 'centralisation'. They 'won' in terms of keeping the name Bitcoin, ticker BTC and the network effect and reputation, soft forking to implement an update called SEGWIT which solved what they saw to be the most pressing issues. The limited on-chain transaction throughput and a shift in narrative from peer-to-peer cash to its current primary intended use case as 'digital gold' evolved hand-in-hand.
BCH: Others saw low-cost high throughput capacity as a priority to keep Bitcoin as something anyone could use on the base layer for any purpose (with forever sub-cent fees) and were prepared to take the chance that a combination of node software optimisation and advancing technology would enable this without an unacceptable degree of 'centralisation'. SEGWIT was seen by this side as a cludge and were left with no option in order to avoid it and to keep alive the dream of Bitcoin as a currency for everyone split by means of a hard fork, thereby requiring a new name and ticker - Bitcoin Cash, BCH.
After some turbulent years, BCH accepted its (temporary?) lower popularity and took advantage of it's current 'little brother' status to develop processes of gaining community consensus and of implementing new functional and scaling features (now annually) via hard fork.
This has enabled BCH to develop a rich feature-set making it by now distinct from BTC in many more ways than higher transaction throughput: such as powerful (UTXO) smart contracts that don't have ETH's scaling limitations, Cashtokens and an algorithmic block-size adjustment mechanism designed to maximise the odds of keeping scaling capability ahead of demand even with high growth.
I think it’s important to mentioned that the mission and operation of bch correlates with the title and content of the white paper while btc does not, indicating that the genius who came up with bitcoin meant it to be what bch is and not what btc is, and that it was btc that diverged from the plan.
Обсуждают сегодня