Since the birth of Bitcoin on August 1, 2017, since the birth of BCH, whoever is the real bitcoin has become a hot spot, sparking controversy. Recently, domestic and foreign countries have experienced another round.
The controversy was triggered by BTC supporters requesting the seizure of Twitter account @bitcoin. This account was registered in August 2011 and is a very early Bitcoin supporter. Due to dissatisfaction with the bitcoin core team's refusal to expand, like many big block supporters, BK is supported after bitcoin forks.
Not only @bitcoin, the Bitcoin.com domain owner Roger Ver and the BTC.com domain owner Wu Jihan also turned to support BCH. Prior to the fork, the bitcoin supporters and their sympathizers who were banned by the reddit/bitcoin version of the discussion expanded the reddit/btc version and turned to support the BCH after the fork.
- Four central banks cut interest rates within two days, and Bitcoin “safe haven properties” received attention
- Destiny and reincarnation: the moment of Bitcoin's production reduction
- BTC prices are overvalued? What is the psychological price of institutional investors?
- Viewpoint | Will ETF change bitcoin like changing gold?
- Bitcoin fell more than 10% during the session, and the four major exchanges closed nearly $ 700 million in intraday trading. Is "digital gold" a false proposition?
- Will the USDT market cap exceed Bitcoin? Stablecoin has become a strategic highland of blockchain
Most BCH supporters believe that BCH is the real bitcoin because:
1) The birth of BCH only expanded the block capacity limit, from 1M to 8M, which was previously advocated by Nakamoto;
2) Core-led BTC implemented the Segregation Witness (SW) in August 2017 to significantly adjust the transaction structure and block structure of Bitcoin, changing the underlying technology;
3) Core refuses to expand the main chain, and through the isolation witness and lightning network, the payment function is squeezed from the BTC main chain to the lightning network, thus turning the BTC main chain into a settlement system, which violates the previous "point-to-point electronic cash" of Bitcoin. Direction of development;
4) In the expansion of the dispute, Core disregarded the Hong Kong consensus and the New York consensus reached by the ecological parties. Regardless of more than 80% of the computing power to support the expansion of the vote, the implementation of its block and lightning network route violates the decentralization spirit of Bitcoin.
5) The block settlement network route has changed the economic model of Bitcoin. For example, after several slashes of the SGD reward, the mining incentives that should be compensated by the expansion of the transaction volume caused by the expansion of the block and the expansion of the transaction volume are difficult to achieve.
Therefore, in the view of BCH proponents, BCH is more in line with the original bitcoin technology, economy and decentralization framework, while Core-led BTC deviates from the original direction.
However, not all BCH supporters claim that "BCH is the real bitcoin." At the beginning of 2018, Wu Jihan proposed "BTC is BTC, BCH is BCH" and advocated independent development. But most people in the BCH community do not agree. I personally analyzed the economic issues related to Bitcoin since 2013. Some important logics are no longer established because the Core route changes the original economic model. Therefore, I also emphasized that BCH is the original bitcoin.
However, the split of BCH in November 2018 has made the domestic BCH community no longer emphasize who is the real bitcoin, but pay more attention to its own development. The BSV generated by the new split is more fiercely declared that "BSV is the real bitcoin."
The BSV was born in an unexpected political attack in the BCH community. After the stable operation of BCH, CW, who claimed to be Nakamoto, entered the BCH community with the support of casino owner Calvin Ayre and lawyer Jimmy, and invested heavily in BCH promotion, application investment, competition, construction of mines, etc. Entering the Chinese community to interact and get support from many people in the BCH community in a short time.
In August 2018, CSW and others began to attack the leading ABC team, Bitland, Coinex, etc., and released a new version of BSV on August 30, threatening to launch without replacing the original ABC and compatible versions with BSV. Computational power, eliminate the ABC version. This set off a civil war in BCH.
In this civil war, CSW gained the support of many people in the BCH community. Apart from business investment, political operation and public opinion guidance, the very important reason is that they simplify, label and extreme the differences between BCH and Core. Become your own sign, emphasizing:
1) Immediately expand the block quickly, and gradually criticize the BCH's claims based on market demand through technological improvements as opposing large blocks;
2) Returning to the 0.1 version of Nakamoto, I believe that the ABC team, like the Core, has destroyed the original framework of Nakamoto.
3) The ABC team is the same technical dictator as Core. The developers have to be, to drive ABC out.
Finally, and the most important one is: emphasize that CSW is the real Nakamoto, and only his BSV is the real bitcoin. Although CSW has never taken out Nakamoto's early private key signature, he used a series of indirect evidence to convince many people that he is Nakamoto.
Through the simplification and labeling of differences, and the personal worship formed by the Sakamoto Aura, BSV has won a number of loyal supporters in the BCH community, especially those who are more concerned with the belief in Nakamoto and the White Paper. . These people became the main body of the BSV community after the split.
Relatively speaking, some pragmatic and rational BCH community members are difficult to accept the radical expansion version of CSC's early version of Benedict's revival, dissatisfied with the arrogance of CSW and its team and the attack posture of other members and competitors, and dislike CSW's high-profile claim. Nakamoto Satoshi can't stand the religious fanaticism and personal worship of CSW supporters, nor can he accept the centralized control of the CSW team. These people stayed in the current BCH community.
After the split, the BSV community turned the early BCH's "BCH is the real bitcoin" based on market demand and e-cash direction into a fundamentalist "BSV is the real bitcoin", claiming that "only one chain survives," Kill BCH first, then kill BTC" and attack the BCH and BTC communities under this war declaration. In contrast, BCH supporters before and after the war stressed that peace and fork, their respective development.
After fierce debates and power struggles during the split period, the extreme thinking in the BCH Chinese community after the split was basically eliminated, and it was more rational and pragmatic. Before Wu Jihan’s proposal, “BTC is BTC, BCH is BCH”, and their independent development suggestions Get more support. However, foreign communities, especially those who have long been committed to the promotion of Bitcoin, such as @bitcoin and Rogr Ver, still insist that BCH is the real bitcoin. The Chinese community also fully understands and supports it.
So, who is the "real bitcoin"? Judging from the debates over the past few years, the standards are multiple, mainly:
1. The power is determined . According to the popular understanding of POW, computing power is power, the longest chain is the main chain, which chain is the most powerful, and which is bitcoin. However, this standard has failed. After the birth of BCH, BCH supporters have more than 60% of the computing power of BTC and BCH, but BCH has not turned into Bitcoin.
2. The market value of the price is determined . The circulation of BTC, BCH and BSV is roughly the same, and the price is consistent with the market value. The current price and market value of BTC far exceeds others, which seems to confirm this. However, if one day the BCH market value exceeds the BTC, will all market segments change their names? I am afraid not.
3. Nakamoto decided . CSW and its supporters hope to gain the name of Bitcoin with the help of Nakamoto's aura, and this is a more radical return to the earlier version. BCH emphasized that he is more in line with Nakamoto and the direction of the white paper. But Core and its supporters generally accepted the shift from electronic cash to stored value and settlement functions. I am afraid that even if Nakamoto appeared, he could not change the name of BTC.
4. Domain name decision. In the BCH battle, some people think that the domain name is an important traffic entry and will decide to name it. But several important Bitcoin domain names are dominated by opponents of the core. Bitcoin.com is in the hands of Roger, btc.com is in the hands of Wu Jihan, and bitcoin.org is constantly criticizing Core's Cobra. These also did not change the status quo of core-led bitcoin.
5. The user decides . Fundamentally speaking, the final decision seems to be in the hands of users, which currency the user supports, and voting with funds will have a decisive role in the market. However, most users do not have a deep understanding of the details of the differences, but they are too scattered, making it difficult to make rational public choices in the short term.
6. Business naming decision . What really determines the two forks in the birth of BCH and BSV is the naming of commercial applications widely used by users in the original ecology, such as exchanges, wallets, block browsers, market websites, and so on. These businesses link to almost all users and determine what kind of naming people accept.
Although business naming is very important, the degree of decentralization of these businesses is already very high. They are not coordinated. They are often weighed according to the situation of the forks. They mainly look at the comprehensive strength of both parties and see how Can attract more users. In the birth of BCH, the comprehensive strength of the two sides is very different, and BCH has also made a new name.
In the BCH power battle, the BSV's war goal was originally to compete with the ABC version for the BCH naming, and the strength of the two sides is not very different. BSV is returning to Nakamoto and the white paper, and ABC version supporters have mastered domain names and more computing power. During the war, there were economic wars, price wars, and propaganda wars. Finally, with the advantage of computing power, market user accumulation and staunch supporters, they gained advantages in terms of computing power and price. Several important exchanges such as Firecoin and Gate.io took the lead. The ABC chain is named BCH.
In the end, ABC joined the reorganization protection to eliminate the chance of CSW's 51% attack success. The CW side announced that it would abandon the BCH and choose the BSV. Even so, there are still some exchanges, including currency security and bitfinex that retain the transition code for BCHABC or BAB. However, it has not affected the overall naming of BCH and BSV in the market.
In general, in the process of splitting, if a naming battle occurs, then various factors will affect the outcome, which is ultimately reflected in the naming of user traffic portals such as exchanges, wallets, and browsers. However, if the split has been completed, it is very difficult to recapture the naming that has been widely accepted in the market.
Regardless of BCH or BSV, now claiming to be a real bitcoin, to prove their rationality to a greater extent, prove that their direction or route is closer to the bitcoin before the fork, where BCH emphasizes the direction, BSV emphasizes all aspects In line with this, gain more supporters of the world currency goals that recognize Bitcoin. But it is extremely difficult to truly recapture the name of Bitcoin. It is better to concentrate on its own market competitiveness.