Bitcoin (BTC) vs Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

Bitcoin (BTC) vs Bitcoin Cash (BCH), two coins that came from the same blockchain but offer distinct solutions. In 2017, Bitcoin experienced a “hard fork,” meaning that a group of developers decided to take the currency in an entirely new direction. What is Bitcoin and what is Bitcoin Cash? Do you know the difference between the two? Bitcoin (BTC) vs Bitcoin Cash (BCH) are far from the same thing.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash: Two Answers to One Problem

Before 2017, there was only one kind of Bitcoin (BTC), and it was facing a big problem: could it scale enough to be used as actual currency?

The issue of Bitcoin’s scalability, which gave us Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash, goes back to its structure. For a Bitcoin exchange to occur, i.e., for it to be added to the blockchain, another party has to verify it.

The verification process is called ‘consensus.’ When asking, “What is blockchain,” the most important thing to remember is that blockchain is decentralized. Transactions that occur on it are verified democratically by miners rather than by a centralized bank or credit card company.

Verifying Bitcoin Transactions

Both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash cryptocurrencies use Proof-of-Work as a consensus mechanism.

At its core, Proof-of-Work means solving complex, asymmetrical math problems. A Bitcoin miner must solve a Proof-of-Work problem to complete a Bitcoin block. A block is a record of a certain number of Bitcoin transactions. In exchange, the blockchain rewards miners with cryptocurrency.

Proof-of-Work calculations are deliberately difficult, though they’re getting easier with new mining technology. Processing a bitcoin transaction takes so much energy that bitcoin’s annual carbon footprint is bigger than Switzerland’s.

The advantage of Proof-of-Work is that it would take a ridiculous amount of energy to overpower the Bitcoin network; this makes a 51% attack on blockchain difficult but not impossible.

Bitcoin Transactions Are Slow

Verifying Bitcoin transactions takes a long time. Specifically, it takes around 10 minutes to create a Bitcoin block. Correspondingly, Bitcoin’s blockchain technology can only accept somewhere between 3 and 7 Bitcoin transactions per second. This is low, like really low.

By comparison, the Ripple (XRP) network can process 1,500 transactions per second. Visa can accept 24,000 per second. Electroneum (ETN) also announced that their new instant payment platform could process transactions faster than Visa, AMEX, and Mastercard.

Furthermore, the size of Bitcoin blocks constricts the network. At the blockchain’s inception, Bitcoin blocks had no size limit. This can be a problem because bigger Bitcoin blocks require more energy. As a result, the blockchain favors large mining pools. And with fewer and bigger mining pools, the Bitcoin network could become centralized.

To avoid this, Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous founder, changed Bitcoin’s code. From 2010 on, Bitcoin has had a block limit of 1MB. This has meant less centralization, but slower transactions.

As Bitcoin adoption grew, transaction speed became a bigger and bigger issue. Some developers worried that Bitcoin price and speed would eventually deter people from using Bitcoin as a means of exchange. This led to Bitcoin’s soft and hard forks.

Bitcoin’s Soft Fork

One way to speed up transactions is to increase the size of Bitcoin blocks. This would allow more transactions to go through simultaneously. Another solution is to make the process of verifying a transaction, i.e., Proof-of-Work, easier and faster.

In 2017, the majority of Bitcoin’s mining pool decided to do the former by implementing a process called Segregated Witness, SegWit.

There are two parts of a Bitcoin transaction: the input and the output (though there can be multiple of each). The input and output represent data about the sender and the receiver, respectively. Specifically, part of the input transaction called the “signature” verifies that the sender has enough funds in their account to initiate the exchange. The signature accounts for 65% of transaction data.

Since the signature is the most significant part of a transaction, it’s also the biggest culprit of Bitcoin’s transaction speed problem. At a conference in 2015, Bitcoin developer Pieter Wuille suggested that that the Bitcoin network separate the signature from the input and shift it to the end of the transaction.

This process is called Segregated Witness. It theoretically increases the size of Bitcoin blocks from 1 MB to 4 MB by redistributing transaction data.

Ultimately, SegWit2x received 95% of the Bitcoin mining community’s approval. After August 2017, transactions looked a little different.

The Origin of Bitcoin Cash

Not everyone agreed with SegWit—a Bitcoin soft fork. More concerned with Bitcoin’s scalability rather than its ability to function as an investment, some Bitcoin developers wanted to increase block size even more. Specifically, they wanted Bitcoin blocks to be 8 MB.

To do this, these developers had to hard fork Bitcoin’s blockchain. A hard fork is when a new upgrade in a cryptocurrency’s protocol creates two different blockchains because it’s so drastic. By comparison, a soft fork like SegWit was still compatible with the older blockchain.

Bitcoin mining pool ViaBTC created the first 1.9 MB Bitcoin block on August 1, 2017. The old Bitcoin network did not accept it. Thus Bitcoin hard forked into Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash.

This also meant that every person who held Bitcoin at the time received the same amount in BCH as they had in BTC.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash

Though originating from the same blockchain, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are ideologically distinct. Bitcoin Cash came from the belief that Bitcoin should be used like cash. By comparison, Bitcoin can function as an investment, though it can also be a means of exchange.

For Bitcoin Cash to function more like cash than Bitcoin, its network needed to validate more transactions quickly. This meant bigger blockchain blocks and easier mining work, which led to some key distinctions:

1. Bitcoin Cash blocks can be a lot bigger.

In 2018, Bitcoin Cash further increased the max block size to 32 MB. However, this does not mean that the average Bitcoin Cash block needs to be bigger.

2. Bitcoin Cash blocks are smaller on average than Bitcoin’s.

Though the network allows for the creation of bigger blocks, the Bitcoin Cash network does not have enough demand to merit anything close to the max block size. The bigger the block, the more computational power is needed to add it to the blockchain.

3. Bitcoin creates more blocks per hour than Bitcoin Cash.

This is because there are more Bitcoin miners than Bitcoin Cash miners. Since Bitcoin blocks can be a lot smaller, they’re a lot easier to mine. This means that there is a lower bar to entry when it comes to Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash mining.

Though there is speculation that some Bitcoin mining pools secretly own others, no single mining pool owns close to half of Bitcoin mining today.

4. Bitcoin Cash is less circulated than Bitcoin.

Bitcoin had 452,878 active accounts in the past 24 hours and averaged 9,772 transactions per hour. By comparison, Bitcoin Cash has 6% of Bitcoin’s active wallets and 8.5% of its total transaction volume.

5. Bitcoin creates more blocks per hour than Bitcoin Cash.

Though Bitcoin Cash can confirm transactions faster than Bitcoin, it doesn’t have the same levels of use.

Bitcoin Cash Is More Centralized

This goes back to Satoshi Nakamoto’s decision to cap Bitcoin blocks at 1 MB. Big Bitcoin blocks encourage large, powerful mining pools. In turn, larger mining pools mean fewer miners, more centralization, and a better chance of a 51% attack on blockchain.

In July 2018, one hacker who goes by BitPico claimed that 98% of Bitcoin Cash nodes are located in the same rack (the Tweet has since been deleted). Not only would this mean that a single organization has control over the Bitcoin Cash network, but it would be easy for hacks to take down the entire network.

This wasn’t the only time that someone accused Bitcoin Cash of being centralized. Jameson Lopp, a cryptocurrency developer, tweeted, “54% of reachable Bitcoin ABC (bcash) nodes are running on Hangzhou Alibaba virtual servers in China.”

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have the first and fourth highest market caps, respectively. Though they share a name, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are very different.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash goes back to Bitcoin’s hard fork in 2017. Though the Bitcoin mining community wanted to increase block size, Bitcoin Cash developers wanted to make blocks even bigger, and transactions even easier.

Today, Bitcoin Cash has lower transaction fees and lower rates of adoption than Bitcoin. This is partially due to the legacy and size of each community. When Bitcoin Cash split, it represented only 5% of Bitcoin miners. And today, Bitcoin Cash is a little over a year old. Additionally, there are concerns about centralization in Bitcoin Cash. Larger blocks mean larger mining pools and fewer miners.

Overall, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have different philosophies. Bitcoin functions as an investment and Bitcoin Cash work like cash. However, in the future, both will confront the same problems. Similarly to Ethereum vs Ethereum Classic. For one, what will happen when we’ve mined all 21 million Bitcoin - we'll talk about this in the next article!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAP Theorem and blockchain

Image
In theoretical computer science, the CAP theorem states that it is impossible for a distributed data store (such as a blockchain network) to simultaneously provide more than two out of the three guarantees: Consistency, Availability & Partition tolerance. CAP Theorem – the parts C: Consistency – At any given time, all nodes in the network have exactly the same (most recent) value. A: Availability – Every request to the network receives a response, though without any guarantee that returned data is the most recent. P: Partition tolerance – The network continues to operate, even if an arbitrary number of nodes are failing. Due to the nature of distributed data stores (such as blockchain), Partition tolerance is a given fact; there will always be failing/unreachable nodes in the network (not least because of the unstable nature of the internet). CAP Theorem states that one has to choose between C (Consistency) or A (Availability) when in the presence of P (Partition): Av...
Read more

Length extension attack

Image
What is length extension? When a Merkle–Damgård based hash is misused as a message authentication code with construction H(secret ‖ message), and message and the length of secret is known, a length extension attack allows anyone to include extra information at the end of the message and produce a valid hash without knowing the secret. Quick sidebar, before you freak out: Since HMAC does not use this construction, HMAC hashes are not prone to length extension attacks. So, a length extension attack is a type of attack where an attacker can use Hash(message1) and the length of message1 to calculate Hash(message1 ‖ message2) for an attacker-controlled message2, without needing to know the content of message1. Algorithms like MD5, SHA-1 and most of SHA-2 that are based on the Merkle–Damgård construction are susceptible to this kind of attack. Truncated versions of SHA-2, including SHA-384 and SHA-512/256 are not susceptible, nor is the SHA-3 algorithm. A bit more details ...
Read more

Contract upgrade anti-patterns

Image
A popular trend in smart contract design is to promote the development of upgradable contracts . To be fair, existing techniques to upgrade contracts have flaws, increase the complexity of the contract significantly, and ultimately introduce bugs - even in the Zeppelin contract upgrade strategy. In this article, we are going to detail our analysis of existing smart contract upgrade strategies, describe the weaknesses we have observed in practice, and provide recommendations for contracts that require upgrades. In a follow-up blog post, we will detail a method, contract migration, that achieves the same benefits with few of the downsides. An overview of upgradable contracts Two ‘families’ of patterns have emerged for upgradable smart contracts: Data separation, where logic and data are kept in separate contracts. The logic contract owns and calls the data contract. Delegatecall-based proxies, where logic and data are kept in separate contracts, also, but the data contr...
Read more