Bitcoin cash fiasco: was it a currency miracle or a scam?
As the main cryptocurrency and digital active in the world, Ethereum has long been in the grip of controversy and a debate on its governance and its economy. One of the most important controversies surrounding Ethereum is the infamous “Bitcoin Cash” fork which occurred in 2017.
In April of the same year, a group of Hardy developers created Bitcoin Cash (BCH), a fork of the original Bitcoin protocol. The decision to create BCH was largely motivated by frustration in the face of perceived ineffectiveness and to the limits of the Bitcoin network, which had led to criticism of its lack of scalability and conviviality.
The fork resulted in two distinct blockchains: the main Bitcoin blockchain (BC) and the new blockchain by Cash Bitcoin (BCH). While the two chains have maintained the same underlying code base, the BCH implementation was designed with a different set of goals and objectives. BCH developers aimed to create a faster and lighter alternative that would meet the needs of everyday users.
Fork’s decision led to two distinct blockchains: the main Bitcoin blockchain (BC) and the new Bitcoin Cash Blockchain (BCH). While the two chains have maintained the same underlying code base, the BCH implementation was designed with a different set of goals and objectives. The developers behind BCH aimed to create a faster and lighter alternative that would meet the needs of everyday users.
So, has the Bitcoin fork led to the creation of Bitcoin Cash resulted in the creation of money for free? In short, yes, but not entirely. Here is why:
The problem with the two expenses
A major problem with the implementation of Bitcoin Cash is the possibility of spending parts. This means that an individual can spend his old Bitcoin (BTC) or Bitcon Cash (BCH) twice in a single transaction, independently of each other. The key problem here is that this creates a situation where two parties exchange goods and services with each other without any official value exchange.
A double expenditure scandal
The implications of the double expenses are serious. Imagine a scenario where an individual sells his old bitcoin pieces to someone, to discover later that he has already spent the same pieces on something else. This can cause significant financial losses for the two parties concerned.
However, in the case of Bitcoin Cash (BCH), this double expenditure problem is exacerbated by the ability to divide transactions on two distinct blockchains. Consequently, a person who spent his old bitcoin or bitco pieces twice in cash can create new “pieces” on each side of the fork, which allows them to create money for free.
The consequences
Although the double expenditure problem may seem to lead to the creation of money for free, the consequences are much more complex. In reality, this has led to a number of problems that tormented the Bitcoin ecosystem:
- Evolution problems : The possibility of dividing transactions on two distinct blockchains creates scalability problems which make it difficult for the network to deal with large volumes of transactions.
- Security risks : The creation of new “parts” on each side of the fork increases the risk of security violations and potential manipulation by malicious actors.
- Loss of confidence in Bitcoin
: The possibility of creating money from nothing has eroded confidence in the Bitcoin network, which makes users more difficult to participate and feel confident in their investments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Bitcoin Cash fork resulted in two distinct blockchains with different implementations, the double expenditure problem created by this fork has led to serious consequences. The possibility of dividing transactions into two distinct blockchains creates scalability problems, security risks and erodes confidence in the network.