Those who have followed the Bitcoin saga since the beginning know that it is a mistake in 2019 to pay attention only to the so-called "father cryptocurrency", since that would mean ignoring the many Bitcoin relatives (and competitors) that share the same DNA. Bitcoin Cash (BCH), in general, is similar to Bitcoin in most aspects, but with a big difference: It has larger Blocks (32 megabytes). This is the result of the innovative idea presented by Roger Ver for BCH that scaling should be possible in the chain itself, without third-party accelerators such as the Lightning Network.
The widely debated solution proposed by this project on decentralized network scaling, has recently received some attention, when lead developer Amaury Séchet suggested on Reddit that he believes that BCH miners are not willing to process blocks of More than 2MB in size.
The claim has been wrongly characterized since then, but the limits of Bitcoin Cash's capacity could be relevant after all. Making block size the epicenter of the debate over the scale complicates the problem of the economy (see below), and the ease with which the Blockchains multiply may also have prevented the industry as a whole.
Are BCH limits self-imposed?
In April 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto published on Bitcointalk.org, writing: "The existing network of Visa credit cards processes around 15 million Internet purchases a day worldwide. Bitcoin can now scale much more than that with the existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. "
The following year, the debate began with Jeff Garzik, who expressed his desire to see Bitcoin "at least match the average PayPal transaction rate" and suggested a patch – which later did not get support – to expand the network. Bitcoin has not yet reached a consensus on the issue, so many projects have emerged from it – for example, BCH, Bitcoin Gold (BCG), Bitcoin SV (BSV) – and above all, the Lightning Network.
Read on: What is the Lightning Network and how does it work?
A problem that was not anticipated in the first community was that the implementation of larger blocks effectively makes the chain "wider" and therefore faster – but given the need to simultaneously update all the nodes of the ledger , it also puts more pressure on the participants. Larger blocks require more resources of all, which means that individual PCs are overcome very quickly.
Therefore, the empowerment of the Blockchain inevitably falls to the hands of those who have consolidated the power of the PCs, which invariably results in a centralization. With a shortage of machines capable of reaching this type of energy, it is not surprising that the network almost never exploits blocks of maximum size, and that the average size of the blocks deviates greatly to 1 MB or less. Few have asked if it is important.
The size of the block also throws an economic key to the problem, although in the end, it may arise from the idea that the desire to make a profit on the value of the fiat limits the effectiveness of the blocking chain, due to the desire of the participants of " break the balance "in cost. It is true that BCH can technically process a 32MB block, but it doesn't matter when most miners are not willing to increase their block size limit.
The size of the block, like any decentralized idea, is a kind of two-way street that must be agreed by those who support the network. Miners – and many of those who are part of the largest BCH mining groups – do not have many incentives to allow larger blocks because their rates do not adapt well to the size of the block.
The mining software allows miners to accept or reject payments based on the size of the attached commission, which in turn is established by BCH wallet and wallet owners who wish to prioritize their transactions within the chain. Many miners do not process transactions that do not have a strong commission reward, since they can be as low as a single Satoshi, the smallest divisible unit of Bitcoin, and instead are incentivized only by the block reward.
The mempool (that is, the "waiting room" for transactions in the BCH queue) therefore increases to more than 1,000 regularly, demonstrating the direct effect of soft-capping of mining pools such as Antminer, BTC. com and Bitcoin.com. It is a business risk, as one Redditor pointed out, from a paradoxical point of view: Why would miners tax their hardware exponentially for a one-minute financial gain, even if this dramatically increases the capacity of their underlying instrument?
With mining already centralized due to the computational career and the profitability of ASICs, miners can make this decision anyway. Large blocks such as those supported by BCH naturally delegate the network load to these miners, who begin to need better hardware to support the expectation of faster and cheaper transactions. Smaller blocks put the financial burden on users through fees. If you are a miner with the ability to determine the maximum block size of your software, there is no doubt about the choice you will make.
BCH developers and leaders manifest
The focus of Bitcoin Cash will not stop being present. As for the potential impediment that speculation about scaling competition and the real muscle behind the larger blocks represents, BCH developers and even its founder, Roger Ver, have much to say. When asked if Bitcoin Cash really has a 2MB limit, Ver realized in a conversation with Cointelegraph:
"I am already working directly with payment companies that expect to reach about 100 transactions per second with more than 100 million users worldwide. If BCH had a 2MB limit, they would not be interested in it, and for this same reason neither are considering BTC. "
There will always be those who are critical of a Blockchain solution for its approach to decentralization, or for committing to the principles relevant to speed and general innovation. The ball is on the field of Bitcoin Cash, although, in a characteristic way, its leader did not take long to dispel doubts and bring out the strengths of the product. See concluded:
"The block size limit of 1MB and the censorship of the discussion clearly have already pushed the industry back about half a decade, and the mischaracterization of Amaury's mail further reverses the clock. The size restriction of the Bitcoin Cash block is not true. "