Bitcoin (BTC) has had many forks over the years, most of which have faded into obscurity. But one fork in particular has separated from the pack: Bitcoin Cash (BCH). In August 2017, BCH forked from BTC with a goal of “fulfilling the original promise of Bitcoin as ‘Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash.’” Proponents of BCH believed that BTC was increasingly becoming a store of value as opposed to a medium of exchange, the latter of which they saw as the original purpose of BTC. To achieve this, they argued that it was necessary to increase BTC’s block size from 1 MB to 8 MB (and eventually to 32 MB), which would allow for more transactions per block and lower transaction fees (only a limited amount of data can be added to each block -- the smaller the block size the more users are incentivized to pay fees to make sure their transactions are included in a timely manner).
Which was the real Bitcoin again?
Was it the chain with most value? Most hashpower? Most cumulative work? Highest transaction volume? Most value transfered?
BTC wins all of these. https://t.co/cwWct4L3C9
The article fails to analyse how many of BCH OP_RETURN transactions are SLP token transactions, and seems to misleadingly imply these transactions transfer no value.
Similar to OMNI on BTC, SLP works via OP_RETURN data.
I believe BSV has token protocols using OP_RETURN too.
The article also repeats misleading "rewrite time" claim of 7 hours against BCH in summary of article while admitting in the internals that this is merely theoretic (more appropriate term would have been: impossible).
[fork.lol only updating price stats, block stats frozen at block 593,132 (BCH) 587,259 (BTC) which is almost 3 days.](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/cjmtia/forklol_only_updating_price_stats_block_stats/)
Putting every chart into a log based is a terrible idea. I understand that author wants to make it more presentable, but if the expectation of the growth of a particular metric is linear yet charted as logarithmic, the viewer would not really understand the size difference properly at first glance.
I.e. if fees are 100x, log chart would only show the 4x difference. Similarly for transaction counts. Both of these things grow in a linear fashion given a particular fork (i.e. fees don't rise exponentially, neither the adoption).
"As of now, BCH and BSV are not gaining real usage over BTC as a medium of exchange, and are not utilizing their larger block sizes. BTC also remains a much more secure blockchain than both BCH and BSV. It remains to be seen whether BCH and BSV can take more of BTC’s market share moving forward."
Bitstamp, 3 vs 12: https://www.bitstamp.net/faq/bitcoin-deposit/ https://www.bitstamp.net/faq/bitcoin-cash-deposit/
Coinsquare, 3 vs 30: They say 3 on their site but it takes 30, need to issue support ticket to find out :(
Kraken: 6 vs 15 https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/articles/203325283-Cryptocurrency-deposit-processing-times
it keeps going but I will stop here.
I find it annoying too. Especially because I sent the trx waited the confirms and nothing happened. Had to email tech support and they explained it.
Here is the response. I also asked them to fix their site documentation.
>Thanks for reaching out!
>I see that your BCH was deposited to your account.
>Our system requires 30 confirmations to deposit BCH transactions to your account. If you have any other questions, please let me know!
Ok, it's one of those exchanges that calls Bitcoin Cash "BAB" and has close to no volume.
I'm not surprised they use 30 confs.
Looks like Coinbase requires 6 for BTC and LTC while only requiring 2x as many for BCH.
**Digital Currency# of Confirmations needed**