Bitcoin Cash Probably Messed Up Their Difficulty Re-Targeting Algorithm On Purpose

Twitter: @CryptoMedicated

Telegram (FREE): t.me/CoinEducation

Help me get rich by giving me 50 claps every time you give me applause on Medium. It’s entirely free and all you have to do is hold down the clap button. Thanks!

— — — — — — — — —

Lesson time! Gather round the fire for a second everyone:

As the title suggests, I firmly believe that Bitcoin Cash probably messed up their difficulty re-targeting algorithm on purpose.

Why?

Because they needed to ensure that their blockchain would remain ahead of Bitcoin Core in order to ensure that their chain would not be absolved.

Huh?

If someone wants to know what the hell I mean by “Bitcoin Cash NEEDED to produce more blocks than Bitcoin to remain safe” here’s a quick lesson in forks and why $BCH screwed their targeting algo. on purpose (shoutout to https://lightco.in )

I’m going to summarize the important fundamental information that you need to know (the hard fork information specifically will come from that https://lightco.in resource that I posted).

So, this is a scenario in where there’s a PLANNED hard fork (BCH was contentious). Assuming there was a minority of full nodes and stragglers that tried to stay behind without upgrading the protocol, the legacy chain would STILL remain.

Here’s a great written explanation of why it would remain. Pay attention to a key word here “blockchain reorganization”.

What is blockchain reorganization?

In laymen’s terms — if you HARD fork a network like BCH did, you’re “loosening the rules”, so legacy blocks are still compatible, technically, with the HF network.

Formal definition of blockchain reorganization

Therefore, if the legacy chain retains the majority of hashing power (which it has for BTC on a ratio of 93% to 7% at the time being), then that chain will be longer than the HF chain. Full nodes will see this, recognize it & mine on that network & orphan the former chain.

By “messing up” the diff. targeting algo. however, $BCH avoided this risk by having miners produce blocks at rapid speed (way faster than they could on the $BTC protocol), which means they’re several thousand blocks ahead of $BTC.

BTC=512k blocks
BCH=519k blocks

Despite this, the disparity in hashing rate between $BTC and $BCH is such that, $BTC would eventually close the gap within a year or two. Why do you think $BCH keeps trying to “adjust” the difficulty targeting algo?

Because BTC can’t pass them if they rig it to be faster.

Do I hate Bitcoin Cash? No. But I know enough about blockchain technology to know that the diff. targeting algo. wasn’t a “mess up”. They needed to ensure the chain didn’t get obliterated by $BTC.

However, that was then. The fact they’re still tinkering with it = danger sign for those that are invested in $BCH or counting on it to usurp Bitcoin one day because they aren’t gaining ground on $BTC at all.

$BCH knows if they don’t find a way to seriously get people to really adopt $BCH in FAVOR of $BTC, then they will die sooner than later. Especially if $BTC does break out the box.

Adaptable Block Size is a TERRIBLE Idea

I don’t mean in block size. Adjusting that is fine. However, having adaptable block size in light of the fact that there’s no tail emission (infinite reward produced from blocks), means there’s no incentive for an attack vector to cripple the network. See the picture below:

jstolfi from r/btc and other brilliant community members who have advocated for $BCH have actually noted this in the past. But instead of listening, their community has chosen to write it all off as “FUD” or “Blockstream propaganda”.

“If they were so concerned about blockchain reorg. why didn’t they make smaller block times?”

Because then it would’ve been a hybrid fork and those on the network for $BTC wouldn’t have been able to mine on the HF chain because the rules wouldn’t have been intercompatible.

$BCH doesn’t want to admit it, but they set their coin up in a way to leech from the power of the $BTC network in order to survive and they jerry rigged their own chain to guarantee survival.

Am I mad at it? Hell no. I don’t care. I’m just pointing out the facts.

So, that’s a brief lesson on what’s going on there. Take it how you want to, but there’s some crucial FA on Bitcoin Cash.

Once again, I don’t invest with my emotions and I don’t make recommendations based on those emotions either. So, take everything I’m saying with a grain of salt. I don’t care about Roger Ver or “stealing the name” or any of that dumb shit. But if you want me to rate it in terms of investment potential?

It’s not a safe one at the moment. Their survival ultimately depends on how popular they can come vs. Bitcoin. They don’t have the benefit of Litecoin or these other currencies that don’t have to compete directly with the Bitcoin protocol. Thus, they’re always going to face a existential crisis vs. Bitcoin until/if Bitcoin dies. That’s just how it is.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Yes No