BCH

solenico

In a nutshell. - Fiat is inflationary by its nature. Moderate ~2% inflation is desirable because it encourages people to spend money and keep economy healthy. - There needs to be more fiat to cover the increase in GDP. There is more people, more products, more services. If there is same amount of money prices will decline and this would mean deflation. - Deflation is bad for economy. Since nominal prices will be less tomorrow than today, people will pass buying products later and later. This will cause unemployment which obviously is not good for economy. If increase in money supply equals increase in GDP there is no inflation. This is slippery slope and can easily turn into deflation. This is why 2% inflation is desirable and typical target. This means money supply needs to increase GDP growth + 2% and then we have 2% inflation. Central banks control money supply and interest rate. Interest rate hikes are used to cool economy which otherwise would start overheating. Increase in interest rate cools down increase in prices by getting money out from the supply. There are plenty of other means central banks can control money supply. No one is intentionally increasing money supply so that it would cause higher than 2% inflation, but anything less than 2% is not desirable either. Anyhow, it’s not conspiracy. English is not my first language and sorry if my terminology is wrong at some points. Still, all central banks operate pretty much the same way. They can control money supply and interest rate and that’s it. If economy needs boost - money printing is typically used and it is dangerous way, since it is easy to over do as happened during Covid causing massive inflation globally. US FED is not an exception. European Central Bank operates exactly the same way. I guess Satoshi never thought how macroeconomics work if the plan really was to use bitcoin as everyday cash. That would never work in real economy with deflationary currency. People would just keep stacking and never use the deflationary currency. Oh wait, but that is exactly what happened to BTC. It will happen to every deflationary currency and coin which even thought of them being useful as everyday cash is ridiculous. BCH has exactly same issue.

DrSpeckles

I think inside crypto there are a couple that are far more usable as currency - think your BCH, kaspa, Xmr as examples but there are others. Jury may be out on which one but once one of them takes off as the usable currency of choice then its growth rate becomes parabolic, and everyone who missed out on the early rises of BTC (which is almost everyone) moves over. Other side of usability is all the smart contract side, again impossible with BTC and may have same effect. ETH being likely leader but again other options. Problem with BTC is the “too big to fail” mentality. We have seen so many times in history where hanging your hat on that hasn’t worked out.

No-Masterpiece2246

It's absolutely true in software, even has a name: technical debt. The more code, the more bugs. Look at Segwit. It caused the worst bug in Bitcoin's history, allowed users to create infinite inflation. Luckily it was caught by a sharp BCH dev.

RubberyDolphin

I think it would make sense for SEC to adjudicate the ones limited to BTC, LTC (and maybe DOGE and BCH), as well as ETH and HBAR first (setting aside staking). Not for any conspiracy type reason—I believe those had the earliest applications and least regulatory issues.

uncapchad

We'd have to know what you did. If you sent from an exchange to *your BCH* address but using the BTC chain and if you have all the keys for the BCH address: Create a new Bitcoin wallet but use recovery and enter the BCH recovery details. This solution from same question posted in Reddit 8yrs ago [https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6r6w5y/i\_accidentally\_sent\_bitcoin\_to\_a\_bitcoin\_cash/](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6r6w5y/i_accidentally_sent_bitcoin_to_a_bitcoin_cash/) there are tools around to assist just make sure you download the recovery to use off-line and do it airgapped. Edge has a useful guide and tool.

your_unpaid_bills

Did you send BTC to a legacy address (starting with 1) or to a modern BCH address (starting with bitcoincash:)? In the first case, the BTC is technically not lost, it was simply sent to the recipient's BTC wallet (which has the same private key / passphrase as their BCH wallet). In the second case, the BTC is lost, because it was sent to an invalid address. This is rather strange though, cause an exchange would typically warn you if you are using an invalid address format for the specific crypto you are trying to send.

marvelish

Last I understood it, BCH and BTC keys are derived using the exact same Algo. Means if you own the keys to a BCH address, you also own the keys to the same BTC address. It is entirely possible for the exchange to retrieve the funds. Convincing them to do it is another matter.

hirako2000

Since they are different network, the network (BTC) you sent the transaction will record you sending it to an address, so you would need those keys to access the funds it received (on BTC network). That you may have the BCH keys won't change anything to that fact. The you sent it through an exchange likely resulted in the same. But worth contacting the exchange to ask. Tldr: Assume it's gone

magus-21

BCH and BTC used to be the same chain. There is a CHANCE that the private key you used to generate your BTC wallet back then could also be used to generate a BCH wallet at the same address. But then again, 2019 is after BCH's hard fork from BTC.

Realistic_Fee_00001

Yet he zensored the working Bitcoin on his platform and supported the captured and crippled one.... USE BCH

totalmarc

Waiting for that BCH pump, dump the last 15

totalmarc

Can't wait to buy BCH at $180 and let it pump again, wait for that BCH pump

Dfeldsyo

And that’s where BCH comes into play

EndSmugnorance

So now he’s a big blocker? Newsflash: BCH exists.

tapmorz

the one and only 💩🪙 BCH 🤣🤣

xblackdemonx

BCH is diarrhea 

yournansdaddy

short BCH with $5k :)

Available-Analyst522

Legacy system as in BCH? That's great you found someone to pay you in BTC. I tried living all of 2014 using just BTC. Was so fucking hungry and my landlord evicted me. Personally I just find Bitcoin isn't great for making payments these days due to high cost and slow speed. And is generally only effective as an investment vehicle. Might be easier finding a landlord that won't evict you though.

Stray14

Coinbase is and has been the worst “crypto beacon” forever. They are always wrong, they employ complete idiots, they never adapt, they block without reasoning, they have zero customer support and they straight up rig markets. Anyone remember when BCH was worth 4K and sales were halted? Well at least for normies. Fuck Coinbase.

Elly0xCrypto

I have both, but BCH has proven that he can stand through bear markets and different stacks, on top of that some miners might migrate to BCH after the next BTC halving (I'm talking about the smaller one with expensive electricity)

Maxx3141

Coinbase also supported Big Blockers initially (BCH over BTC)...

henryf3

I shorted BCH 😁

ajs209

BCH Kaspa Hbar Coq Inu Or one these meme coins shib, pepe, biggie, or mog

manifestDensity

BCH has swung harder than BTC. It is basically just BTC for people who want to own BTC, but also want to feel a bit edgy

Tiny_Kangaroo

BCH is currently about the same price it was when it was created in 2017 and BTC is up about 2600% since then. Seems like a pretty terrible long term investment.

chubs66

What problem does BCH solve better than other coins?

surfnsets

It gives the illusion of scarcity. In reality there are other coins with similar if not better tech. Most demand is artificial driven by Strategy. But it can be duplicated….see LTC & BCH. So all you really have is FOMO. Myself included lol.

lovebitcoin

Maybe ETH is worth 0.1 BCH.

MrExCEO

Look at the BCH chart, it’s gonna rip eventually

thebigweb

Some good movement with BCH.

MrExCEO

BCH ❤️

EnvironmentalSky8557

I agree. BCH and LTC are like the OGs that never got their hype moment. Fast, cheap, reliable but no meme magic or VC pump 🥲

YaBastaaa

BCH & LTC - gets no love . Amazing these have been since the beginning and still no 🚀 🤷🏻‍♂️

MrExCEO

BCH

keghar

What ist W and BCH?

LetWaltCook

Sol, Eth,BCH

Trick_Dragonfly460

The BTC path his just not useful, though. It does not allow Bitcoin to be more than a speculative asset. If the price keeps going up, then regular people will be fully priced out of interacting on-chain at all. It makes it so that Bitcoin really changes just about nothing for the average person, and people are still forced to use custodial solutions and IOUs and middlemen. And nodes are indeed important, but not worth crippling the entire network. What's better: A world where 99% of people can run a node and only 1% can transact on chain, or a world where 99% can transact on chin but only 1% can run a node? Even then, reports of the additional node overhead for BCH are often overestimated. There's also no cat jpeg's on BCH for sure lol. There's native on-chain tokens, but BCH is committed to keeping its focus on being a crypto*currency*. As you said, blockchain isn't the answer to *everything*. It doesn't make sense to put *everything* on blockchain just as as it doesn't make sense to slap AI on everything, which is the current craze. Blockchain is a tool. AI is a tool. Both are ingenious technologies and have their wonderful use cases. That said, blockchain for the global transaction including small daily purchases is within the realm of reason and possibility with current technology, and we would all be so much better off for it if there was global adoption and standardization of crypto as day-to-day currencies.

BranJacobs

I was around when the block-size war happened, So I'm familiar with BCH's side of the story. Honestly at the time I was mostly agnostic about a 2-4 mb block size but as time goes by I see the wisdom of keeping the block size small. I always thought that high fee spikes was a short sighted reason to tinker with the block size. And now with inscriptions and other non-monetary shitcoinery, the cheapest block space is taken quickly. No reason to believe that 32 mb blocks wouldn't fill up and bid the price up all the same. We would have more cat jpeg's on the blockchain, sure, but way less nodes. Doing everything on-chain is silly by several orders of magnitude. Try to run a full archival ETH node if you don't believe me. That's why ETH clones like Solana don't even pretend to be decentralized. Just useless degenerate gambling chains. Just checking the median fee of both BTC and BCH and they're basically the same? Not the same priced in USD for obvious reasons but in "Sats" they're the same. Average fee for BTC is 3x higher than BCH in Sats but that's not too bad considering there is way more than 3x demand for BTC block space. Trade away a robust network of nodes to optimize for high volume transactions and STILL lose to stable coins.

Trick_Dragonfly460

There is no reason why our readings need to be separate. Quite frankly, the idea of "Digital gold" is a scam. You can have BOTH Store of Value AND Medium of Exchange via Bitcoin. "Digital Gold" is a narrative to neuter the real utility of Bitcoin and kill off any real threat to banks and paypal etc and not change how crypto really affects the vast majority of the population's life in any way. And also quite frankly, if someone reads the white paper with zero context, I have pretty good confidence most will agree that the intended purpose is exactly to allow high volume transactions to empower *many* people in their daily lives to transact without middlemen. I recommend you read BCH's side of the [story,](https://bitcoincashpodcast.com/faqs/BCH-vs-BTC/is-bch-just-btc-with-larger-blocks) if you yet have not.

YogurtCloset3335

I suspect it's a well-funded intel-backed operation. Chinese code, Russian "founder", huge Reddit bot presence, scary-sounding rhetoric on social etc. This is a big operation yet they seem to have zero physical presence. Reminds me of Craig Wright BSV op on BCH. Total BS in hindsight and they must've burned hundreds of millions on that big fail.

SkepticalEmpiricist

BCH pretending they're the 'real Bitcoin'

Trick_Dragonfly460

Bitcoin Core uses buzzwords too, "Store of Value" and "Number go up" are some of them for instance. The question I ask myself is, why buy BTC when there's a version of Bitcoin that actually has utility and potential to scale for adoption and enjoys the same genesis blocks, security, and PoW protcol, but actually has real innovation and decentralized development, rather than stuffing tech debt into the codebase to try and squeeze the last literal bit of an artificially-limited block size and telling users to like it? Yes I'm talking about BCH.

Noodle36

I bought at 1k (sold at 1,200 lol) Also bought 2 BTC at ~6k then panic sold into BCH lmfao

SevereArrivals13

Putting together Moons and DONUTs is not fair tbh Its like comparing BTC with BCH Moons have a far bigger community behind them, a much stronger use case with advertisers buying and burning thousands of Moons daily on average and the max supply has a hard cap which is quite low anyway. Not to mention a Kraken listing and plenty of other things..

BlazingHypogrif

NEAR, AVAX, ADA, ETC - These ones still didn't show any serious moves, but have a huge potential. BCH, LTC already got +40%. Invested 2 months ago btw

EG4N992

Surely It will just be a hard fork like with BTC and BCH, so everything from the point of the hardfork including the ledger is copied just with the new quantum resistant encryption. General consensus will be to use the new quantum resistant updated version and BTC as we know it right now become obsolete, liquidity doesn't need to be physically moved from one chain to the other, trading just continues taking place on the new chain and because their are not as many people trading on original BTC the liquidity dries up and satoshi wallet becomes worthless on that chain, so even if it's broken it doesn't matter it won't give you access to the new quantum resistant satoshi wallet which will still hold the value of the new BTC at that time.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Canadian teen Cameron Redman was convicted for a $37M Bitcoin heist and hacking X accounts using SIM-swap attacks and phishing scams. He stole 1,547 BTC and 60,000 BCH, laundered funds through exchanges, and compromised NFT profiles. Redman was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day, with a three-year supervised release, and ordered to pay $308K in fines and restitution. Authorities recovered $5.4M, but $31.5M remains missing. The case highlights rising SIM-swap incidents and phishing scams in crypto thefts. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

CashDragonX

Bitcoin Cash (BCH), the real Bitcoin!

DangKilla

You can fork. It’s happened before and why we have BCH.

BulaRebula

If we call current chain "old_bitcoin" and the new fork "new_bitcoin", you will have the same amount of bitcoin on both chains, because the starting state of the new_bitcoin will be exact copy of old_bitcoin, so if you currently have 1 BTC, you will have 1BTC on each of the chains, but the BTC on old_bitcoin will become worthless, since nobody will use it, because why would you buy BTC on a chain where somebody can easily steal it. An example of this is "Bitcoin cash" which is a hard fork of bitcoin that was created on 1.8.2017. So if you had 1 BTC on current chain on 1.8.2017, you automatically got 1 BTC (called 1 BCH) on the "Bitcoin cash" chain (since it also acknowledges all historic transactions). Some people still use Bitcoin cash, that is the reason why it still has some value. One of the selling points of Bitcoin cash is a bigger block size (increased from 1MB to 32MB if I am not mistaken), but this decreases the decentralization potential because of higher Hardware costs. I would not be too worried about block size, since the Lightning network can fix the problem with limited TPS.

Trick_Dragonfly460

If you support BTC and not BCH, you don't get to quote Satoshi, with all due respect.

EddaST17

Hey!BCH is currently trading in the 530-540 USD range,which is a pretty key zone.If it manages to break above 540 with solid volume,theres a good chance it could push toward 550-555 where the next resistance lies.But if it fails to hold 530, it might drop back toward 520 or lower-that area acted as support previously. Your long entry at 535.60 with 10x leverage and 10% of your portfolio is quite aggressive.I’d definitely recommend setting a stop-loss somewhere around 528-530,depending on your risk tolerance.With that kind of leverage even small moves can hit hard. Also,keep an eye on BTC-BCH tends to follow its momentum,especially during bigger swings.If BTC stays calm,BCH might get room for its own move.Altcoin sentiment has been a bit weak lately too,which could play a role. Fingers crossed it works out for you.🤞

A1JX52rentner

Im tired of quoting so im gonna go paragraph for paragraph 1. That’s just a misread of what happened. BIP148 wasn’t a new fork — it was a coordination signal for nodes to enforce an existing upgrade (SegWit). It didn’t create a new chain. It said: "After Aug 1, we reject blocks that don’t signal SegWit." Miners switched before the deadline because they saw the risk of being orphaned. No fork, no chain split, just users forcing consensus. 2. Exactly. They never reached 90 percent because the community didn’t accept their terms. The whole point is that the hashpower threshold failed to control the outcome. The UASF showed that users set the rules, not private miner meetings. SegWit activated without their 90 percent. That’s what steamrolling looks like. 3. That’s exactly why Bitcoin works, it doesn’t rely on ideals, it relies on incentives. Miners follow profit, users enforce rules, and no one has unilateral control. You can critique capitalism all you want, but Bitcoin’s strength is that it doesn’t pretend humans act selflessly. It aligns interests instead. 4. That’s just backwards. Nodes didn’t change the rules, they enforced the existing ones by rejecting non-SegWit blocks. Miners stalled, users pushed forward, and SegWiti activated without a chain split. The rules didn’t change, they held, and miners had to adapt. 5. Wrong again. That bugged block was universally rejected because nodes wouldn’t accept it. A fix was pushed, users updated, and consensus was restored. Miners didn’t make the decision, they mined on the chain nodes would validate. That’s how Bitcoin works. Nodes don’t just follow, they decide what’s valid. 6. I’m not reading your mind, I’m reading your revisionist takes. You’re clinging to a version of history that ignores how consensus actually works. If you think one dev and some miners dictate Bitcoin, you fundamentally misunderstand the system you’re trying to explain. At this point ist clear you’re not arguing from facts, you're just digging in to protect a dead narrative. The market chose BTC, not BCH, not Classic, not your Reddit fanfic. SegWit actiavted, consensus held, and everything you said “didn’t happen” is exactly what defines Bitcoin today. You lost that battle eight years ago and you’re still coping.

suninabox

> Yeah, no one uses the 183 billion BTC chain because nodes rejected it. That's not what happened. 1 person created a new client to create a soft fork whilst all the other nodes continued to recognize the old chain. Eventually enough blocks were added to the new fork that nodes now recognized it >Cool story. that 2016 miner meeting set a 90% threshold… and got steamrolled by the UASF in 2017. Again, not what happened. They never reached a 90% threshold. >Exactly, miners follow the money, not ideals. I'm sure blindly following money will never lead to economic externalities or speculative bubbles. >That’s why users running nodes set the rules, and miners adapt or lose profits Again, not what happened. Nodes tried to change the rules, they couldn't get enough miners to move over, so they failed and stuck to the old rules. >Fixing a bug that broke the 21M cap isn’t “arbitrary” it’s preserving the core rule, not changing it. That’s the difference between a protocol failure and a consensus betrayal. Bitcoin stayed immutable because the network rejected the broken state. Again, not what happened. 1 person wrote a new client for Bitcoin and then eventually miners put enough blocks on it that node recognized it as legit. Nodes exercised no agency this process. >Listen, it’s Friday evening in Germany, I’m tired, and I’m not gonna keep arguing with you. I don’t know if you lost money on BCH and are still bitter, but I wish you all the best. It would be better if you were just right about what happened than to engage in bad faith mind reading routines.

A1JX52rentner

>Nodes rejecting blocks on a network no one is using is irrelevant. >Who is still using the original ledger that has 183 billion bitcoins on it? No one. Run your own node for it if you want. See how useful it is. Yeah, no one uses the 183 billion BTC chain because nodes rejected it. That’s literally the point. It’s not about running a node alone, it’s about a network of nodes enforcing shared rules. Consensus killed that bug, preserved the 21M limit, and protected Bitcoin’s integrity. That’s not irrelevance that’s proof of power. >No, I'm going specifically by the meeting notes from a conglomerate of miners who represented the majority of hashpower in the world who said unless the new fork got 90% of hashpower they weren't going to bother moving over. Cool story. that 2016 miner meeting set a 90% threshold… and got steamrolled by the UASF in 2017. Users enforced SegWit, nodes validated it, and miners had to follow or lose money. That meeting just shows miners tried to control Bitcoin and failed. >Miners will always go with the money over what actually makes for a functional currency. If only someone could have guessed concentrated economic power was a bad basis for a decentralized currency. Exactly, miners follow the money, not ideals. That’s why users running nodes set the rules, and miners adapt or lose profits. Bitcoin isn’t governed by trust, it’s governed by incentives and that’s what keeps it decentralized despite concentrated mining. >Except for that time they took 183 billion "immutable" bitcoins off the ledger. Those kind of arbitrary changes we're happy with. Fixing a bug that broke the 21M cap isn’t “arbitrary” it’s preserving the core rule, not changing it. That’s the difference between a protocol failure and a consensus betrayal. Bitcoin stayed immutable because the network rejected the broken state. Listen, it’s Friday evening in Germany, I’m tired, and I’m not gonna keep arguing with you. I don’t know if you lost money on BCH and are still bitter, but I wish you all the best.

suninabox

> If miners produce invalid blocks, nodes reject them, and those blocks are worthless. That’s real power. Nodes rejecting blocks on a network no one is using is irrelevant. Who is still using the original network that has 183 billion bitcoins on it? No one. >Because miners don’t lead they follow the money. In 2017 users ran nodes enforced UASF and made it clear they’d reject non-SegWit blocks. BCH had bigger blocks and some miner support and still got wrecked. The market chose BTC. Miners followed. You are just making assumptions. No, I'm going specifically by the meeting notes from a conglomerate of miners who represented the majority of hashpower in the world who said unless the new fork got 90% of hashpower they weren't going to bother moving over. https://blog.bitmex.com/translation-of-chinese-miner-consensus-meeting/ >Regarding the block size increase, participants have made the following decisions and hope other Bitcoin enterprises and users will follow: >1: Increase the Bitcoin block size to 2 MB >2: Refuse to support any fork that has support of less than 90% of mining capacity Miners will always go with the money over what actually makes for a functional currency. If only someone could have guessed concentrated economic power was a bad basis for a decentralized currency. >That “inertia” is what protects Bitcoin from arbitrary changes. Except for that time they took 183 billion "immutable" bitcoins off the ledger. Those kind of arbitrary changes we're happy with.

suninabox

>Nodes were able to run whatever software they wanted to. And? Unless you get a critical mass of miners to dedicate hashpower to your software its basically useless, which is what happened to BCH. Developers wanted to switch over to have bigger blocks and a more functional currency, but miners were convinced that unless you could get 90% of hashpower to agree to change the protocol, it would ruin the speculative incentives because it would create 2 roughly equally sized networks that would ruin the illusion that one is particular unique or immutable. your "freedom" is nothing but the inertia of existing mining conglomerates, and sticking you with poor decisions made over 15 years ago.

walrus120

Well goes without saying unless they pull some BCH crap claim to be the original

MichaelAischmann

Today marks the 8th anniversary of the first Bitcoin hard fork which resulted in the birth of BCH.

eupherein

Very interesting points were raised here for multiple reasons. The main one that comes to mind is that there is enough dormant ASIC hardware sitting around solely due to lack of profitability alone. In the event that the entire network is at risk, said hardware could be brought online relatively quickly, and limit the attackers window from ever coming to be while they are at their final 40-50% for example. Aside from that, there is always the possibility of a rollback, which now has a significantly higher complexity than previous ones but is still possible with enough network consensus. BCH only required a hard fork and new ticket because it was controversial. A rollback from a 51% attack to *preserve* the original chain with no *updates or improvements* is a completely different story.

El_Flaco_666

It might seem ridiculous, but take a look at LTC on a monthly chart. Then draw trend lines on both the lows and the highs for the past 2 cycles. Yes, it's a dino coin. Yes, it's not a high-adoption token like Solana. Yes, the price action this cycle is boring AF. But it does have a large whale community, and historically they pump it every cycle. I won't be a bit surprised if it reaches its ATH ($420), provided that BTC.d does eventually drop to 50% or below. Personally, that's my low-risk safe-bet bag. Remember, there were a bunch of ancient coins that nobody thought would pump, but did (ETC, BCH, XVG, SC, and a few others). Probably want you're looking for; a more reliable chance at a return than BUTTCOIN or whatever.

Technical_Leader8250

The BCH price would go to 0 after it was “hacked” like that. So if they can not offload the BCH quick enough the profitability is NOT the same. Also attacking BCH like that would most likely dunk the price of other coins just because of the panic if it can be repeated on BTC. I know how to decide that, but most people don’t.

pop-1988

The main reason is the Satoshi justification in the white paper - there's more value in mining fairly than there is in attacking The actual history of real 51% attacks (especially BTG) exposes a flaw in Satoshi's one block at a time calculations. The BTG attack stole money from Binance by mining a shadow chain tip for two hours - not one block at a time But SHA256 mining (BTC, BCH) is organized into mining pools. Pools are not miners. They're a reward distribution service to their members (miners). So they have a reputation to protect, not to use their members' hashes for crime BTG is small enough that a single miner could rent 51% hashpower for 2 hours - no pools anywhere in that scam BSV (SHA256) is famous for a period of having a single miner 51% attacking - for disruption, not for personal gain. Pools aren't supporting BSV

HSuke

That's an excellent question. BCH miners attacked BSV before. I don't know why BTC ones haven't done it to BCH miners. Maybe because it still costs millions of dollars, and there isn't enough animosity between the 2 communities anymore. If the BCH community really pissed off BTC miners, then it would be pretty easy for them to get attacked. But that would reignite a war and highlight the weakness of PoW.

MichaelAischmann

The mining profitability (USD/Day for 1 THash/s) is the same for both networks. [https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/mining\_profitability-btc-bch.html#3y](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/mining_profitability-btc-bch.html#3y) Some miners use profit-switching algorithms. I still don't get why BTC miners wouldn't just overpower BCH for a few blocks to do as they please? I know there's a plausible reason or else it would have happened & I know it must not be profitable. But I can't pin point why. Sorry for asking follow up questions. I just want to fully understand.

bzzking

Because BTC miners would need to mine BCH instead and there is no way BTC maxis will give up BTC block rewards for BCH. It’s not worth the risk vs reward

SherbetFluffy1867

Ok, I'm going to assume your situation is this: you don't really understand the Bitcoin protocol and network well and if the US government didn't create the software then you are wondering why haven't they tried to kill it. I think, assuming that is your position, that they tried in the beginning to find Satoshi Nakamoto after Bitcoin began being used to backdoor funds to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. He went into hiding and they were never able to identify him/her/them. Since the software was open source and released to the world free and decentralized it was already too widespread to contain. This is just conjecture since we don't really know. As far as ways to attack Bitcoin, here is a ChatGPT generated list of vectors and ways it could be done. To date I'm unaware of any nation states ever being accused of attacking the network or protocol. The cool thing about Bitcoin is that it pretty much is always more profitable to expend resources to participate rather than attack it. Here's a succinct list of the main known attack vectors against the Bitcoin protocol as of July 2025: --- 1. Consensus-Level Attacks 51% Attack: Control >50% of hash rate to double-spend or censor transactions. Selfish Mining: Withhold blocks to gain disproportionate mining rewards. Timejacking: Manipulate node clocks to affect network time and block validity. Invalid Block Relay: Attempt to propagate invalid blocks to disrupt nodes (mostly mitigated). --- 2. Network Attacks Eclipse Attack: Isolate a node by controlling all its peers, enabling manipulation. Sybil Attack: Flood the network with fake nodes to disrupt communication or voting. Partitioning: Physically or virtually split the network (e.g. BGP hijack). Denial of Service (DoS): Target nodes or the mempool with spam or malformed data. --- 3. Mempool/Transaction-Level Attacks Fee Sniping: Reorg to claim high-fee transactions from past blocks. Transaction Malleability: Alter txIDs before confirmation (mostly mitigated via SegWit). Dust Attacks: Send tiny amounts to trace UTXO linkages and deanonymize. Pinning Attacks: Use low-fee unconfirmed parent transactions to prevent replacements. --- 4. Mining Attacks Block Withholding: Join a pool but never submit valid blocks—wastes pool's effort. Pool-Hopping: Switch between pools to maximize short-term gain, harming others. ASIC Manufacturer Attacks: Ship underperforming or backdoored devices. --- 5. Economic/Game-Theory Attacks Fee Market Manipulation: Spam or suppress transaction fees to affect block space market. Exchange Collusion: Coordinate withdrawals to manipulate mempool or price signals. Miner Bribing: Pay miners off-chain to reorg or censor certain transactions. --- 6. Protocol-Level Exploits Consensus Bugs: Software bugs causing chain splits (e.g. CVE-2018-17144). Inflation Bugs: Exploits that allow creation of extra coins. Soft Fork Exploits: Abuse of partial upgrade adoption to split or confuse nodes. --- 7. Social & Governance Attacks Social Engineering: Trick developers or maintainers to accept malicious proposals. Governance Capture: Influence devs/miners/users to support self-serving forks or changes. Fork Wars: Create confusion through competing chain splits (e.g. BCH/BSV history). --- 8. Cryptographic Attacks (Theoretical/Future) Quantum Attacks: Break ECDSA to steal funds (Post-quantum planning underway). Hash Collision: Break SHA-256 (currently infeasible). RNG Attacks: Exploit poor key generation to steal private keys.

MichaelAischmann

BTC miners could surely fifty-one the BCH network. Why don't they?

wrex82

If your wallet is that old, you get some extra coins from the hardforks like BCH!! Check which hardforks you're in and which are worth anything. Then download the Core Wallet, load your BTC key and sync the blockchain. Now you have access to that coin and you can send it to a hardware wallet or exchange.

Kooriki

I've been saying this since the BTC/BCH civil war.

Aggressive-Leading45

Don’t forget to check for BCH if it pre dates 2017.

DentistLanky8147

Bought a large bag of $BCH from $77-133 and it’s been doing well

DrSpeckles

From what I can see BCH has led the trend. That’s interesting.

Leithm

They also patched this BTC inflation bug found by the BCH/BU team. [https://medium.com/@awemany/600-microseconds-b70f87b0b2a6](https://medium.com/@awemany/600-microseconds-b70f87b0b2a6)

Leithm

>BCH also has a lot of problems including the issue which could cause it to speed up the inflation of its coins What are you talking about?

Sweet_Resolution8555

Terrible take. BCH is a failed attempt to fork the original Bitcoin. The decision was made to keep Bitcoin as is. BCH also has a lot of problems including the issue which could cause it to speed up the inflation of its coins. BCH will forever bleed to BTC. Really not worth holding IMO.

Tallrion

BCH. It will go ballistic. + very solid fundamentals

RespectFront1321

Unlikely or else they wouldn’t have stored it over just 8 addresses. They just decided now is a good time to sell their BTC while moving their BCH, they got for free during the 2017 fork, to a new wallet. It’s all just speculation. Galaxy mentioned it’s part of a larger estate planning.

RespectFront1321

Well… they did sell their 80k BTC while at the same time moving their 80k BCH to a new wallet. Maybe they did lose faith in BTC, why else sell now? After holding for 14 years last week was the perfect time to cash out for $9 billion?

-GAIA-Sub

BCH is pumping :/

RespectFront1321

Yes they have been losing faith, in BTC, not Bitcoin. Lots of big Satoshi-era whales held BCH despite the “bcash scam” narrative. The fact that recently very big whales have split their BCH before selling BTC supports this.

AnoAnoSaPwet

TVL has been rising significantly on-chain recently. Would not surprise me at all with how little a billion dollars is perceived as "small" an investment these days in major networks? BCH/XMR have added several billions themselves in growth, no mention of that anywhere?  Ripple has added $70B in net market value in the last few weeks. Big waves being noticed in volume, but not a very significant amount of talk about it.  Perhaps $PEAQ, is one of the big movers going forward? 

Azzuro-x

Ledger supports the most coins however the firmware is closed source (the frontend and the applications are open source) accordingly may not satisfy your condition. Trezor supports much less coins (particularly Trezor One) but it is open source (with the exeption of the secure element firmware in case of the Safe series) : BTC, ETH incl. tokens, ETC, SOL incl. tokens I think, XRP, BCH, SUI, XMR, ADA, LTC.

Acrobatic-Soup-8862

We were talking about BTC $3K at that time; $3k by the end of 2017. It was a scary time because it was essentially a time of civil war in the BTC community, and there was no obvious guarantee that the ecosystem would survive it. First, that it would literally and technically survive the hard fork, and then second, that the community and Bitcoin itself could retain credibility in the face of a prominent fork, especially with ETH starting to knock on the door as competition. It turned out the Bitcoin Cash hard fork acted more like a surprise dividend payment than a threat. Technically it worked great and spiritually, the Bitcoin forks, despite some initial success, did not survive the ensuring bear market (as measured by their recovery in 2021). Also shout out to Bitcoin Gold, that was a surprisingly strong dividend payment as well. The real winners were people that kept their Bitcoin on Coinbase. At first, it was thought they were idiots because there was no guarantee Coinbase was going to give you access to the BCH. But after its initial pump, they ultimately did. This mattered because the specific time they dropped the BCH to the holders was also the ATH for BCH, in fact, it was trading at a huge premium on Coinbase. You could have sold it for $8k (while BTC was somewhere in the teens). That didn’t last; though. Anyway. There’s your fireside story for the day.

CryptoCryptonaire

BCH has some absolutely insane potential. If just one treasury company were to drop one or two billion dollars on it, they'd instantly transform the space and become the 5x MSTR of BCH. Since BCH's price is so low right now, they would end up with 3-million+ coins. That would also almost instantly make the coins price 5x because its just as rare as BTC, but even more so because theres more total BCH lost...

foxroadblue

He became a BCH maxi

conceiv3d-in-lib3rty

Yeah a lot of people forget that all these “awoken” Satoshi-era whales also have an equal amount of BCH in their wallets from the fork.

RespectFront1321

Curiously enough this whale also moved their 80,000 BCH to a new wallet on the 4th of July but hasn’t sold that.

CryptoCryptonaire

Bitcoin Cash. It was a hard fork from Bitcoin back in 2017 after half the developers couldn't agree on speed and transaction costs. It's very literally just as rare as BTC, but super fast, super cheap, and can scale with adoption. Due to its scarcity and low price, it has the potential to 1,000x if just one of these treasury companies were to buy it. I'm by no means saying it will do this of course, but I do personally buy both BTC and BCH as a hedge just in case.

MiamiHeatAllDay

BCH? 🤦🏻‍♂️

LargeSnorlax

Most shops dont accept any crypto directly because of regulatory uncertainty. The best you'll find is stuff like Bitpay or loading up a prepaid crypto credit card. For just about any business that accepts crypto in any way, BTC or ETH are just fine. LTC and BCH are also used sometimes mostly because of coinbase pay accepting them. Basically nowhere accepts small cap altcoins for payment for good reason. If you want to pay with crypto, just make a hot wallet and keep some funds in one of the 4 above (btc, eth, bch, ltc) that you dont care about the price going up and down on. Use it as your payment wallet and load up when it gets low. No need for other altcoins.

CryptoCryptonaire

The bull run is supposed to be this year in the Nov/Dec time frame. However, if you've watched any Mark Moss videos on YouTube, he believes theres a good chance alt coins aren't where its at this time around. Instead, he thinks its going to be in crypto treasuries and proxies on Wallstreet such as MSTR, CEP, ASST, CCCM, etc... I dunno if hes right or wrong, but what I do believe is that BTC and BCH are guaranteed winners long term.

Ez_eq

It's not over until BCH goes on a 40 percenter

RespectFront1321

I’ve used BTC back in 2013 (mainly playing on a website called just-dice.com) up until fees got high. Switched to BCH which I’ve been using to this day. It got a lot of upgrades the last couple of years, adaptive block size algorithm and CashScript/CashTokens for Defi/smart contracts for example. My main use case is P2P cash though, that’s why I got into BTC originally back then. Not too many merchants accept it but (still the 4th most used coin on BitPay though) I go out of my way to find merchants that do just to get that good old Bitcoin experience again.

RespectFront1321

Go to a BCH explorer, oklink.com for example, and check out these 8 BCH addresses: qp2nm5wcxzfv7av7z52vuw007dxmzlcpnurdvv7wlz qpzcm9pratrmcj292zsr03he8fkzucatsyma2qnnhf qz5t68f0kzfsjakyd72sv2v0zajkdnvacgj8jahuxj qr308jnv2pwszngufdndw3y8hwsx8slvmvjn3gumft qpmp8e6p5rz5tvju0nt7k8hdr874jxhsmqcyszsycf qpe4l2gavfu4ktxel48jgcxrm47g5449x5mhnvf8v2 qqde4lcy5l8wa50xgpg6wwxw6rxf0dew2qnknlyjsk qqcxfakgqv8hgp8lwjvglm9pss5yx4der5gkvtzrtx Each of those contains 10k BCH that the whale split on the 4th.

RespectFront1321

No and you don’t have to take my word for it. You can check for yourself using any blockchain explorer that this is true. You’ll see that the BCH moved to 8 new addresses holding 10k BCH each and haven’t moved since. Meanwhile the BTC moved multiple times, eventually ending up on different exchanges like Binance, ByBit, Bitstamp etc. through Galaxy Digital.

RespectFront1321

The 4th of July whale that cashed out their 80k BTC held on to their 80k BCH. They split the BCH on the 4th after not having touched it since the fork in 2017. Clearly they think BCH has merit, why else would they bother splitting their 80k BCH to a new wallet and proceed to sell their BTC?

partymsl

Ewwwwww BCH...

legendary_korra

BCH for sure

CryptoCryptonaire

BTC (because its the top dog) BCH (because its exactly the same as BTC, but scalable, fast, and cheep) SOL (because its doing 75% of all blockchain transactions combined)