A BCASH Civil War Might Actually Be Good For Bitcoin – Here’s Why

The crypto world has seen lots of online exchanges between two rival Bitcoin Cash camps over the last few weeks. However, the real concern is just how much this battle will impact Bitcoin, now that the planned system upgrades or forks have gone live.

The Battle Of The Forks

On one side, you have Craig Wright with BCH Satoshi Vision, and on the side you have Bitmain’s Jihan Wu and Bitcoin.com’s Roger Ver with BCH ABC. BCHSV is conservative in that it wants to keep the network in its original form only meant for financial transactions. On its side, the BCHABC camp wants to upgrade the system to make a modern platform similar to Ethereum that can be used to develop other solutions.

The BCH “Game of Thrones” has been heating up for months. At the moment, Bitcoin Cash ABC seems to be gaining more support, with influential people like John McAfee and Roger Ver throwing their weights behind it. It has also gained favor with Bitstamp, a fairly large crypto exchange. Binance has announced that it will support both BCHABC and BCHSV on its trading and exchange platform.

BCASH ABC Is Prevailing

Besides gaining traction in terms of support, BCHABC has started out well ahead of its rival. Within hours of the fork going live, BCHABC had mined over 50 blocks more than BCHSV. BCHABC mined the first two blocks while BCHSV took the third, pronouncing the official split of the chain.

One of the main reasons for the apparent success of the BCHABC chain is the support it has drawn from Bitmain and Bitcoin.com. Roger Ver mining pool possesses a hash power that’s double the total power of the BCH network.  That makes a great difference especially as Roger Ver announced that the organization will be redirecting its Bitcoin mining power towards mining BCHABC.

A Bullish Twist For Bitcoin

So, how does this BCASH civil war affect Bitcoin as the original chain? It should be remembered that just last year, 2017, BCH was created through a similar fork process from the original Bitcoin network. In fact, the timing was close to this year’s BCH upgrade. Bitcoin’s fork that created BCH happened on 13th November, 2017. BCH’s fork happened on 15th November, 2018.

Before the fork happened on Bitcoin’s network in 2017, the network was down on hash power. Merely days after the fork, BTC’s hash rate sky-rocketed, sending the crypto’s price “mooning” to hit $10,000 by end of the month. By end of December 2017, Bitcoin was trading at upwards of $19,000. In the lead-up to the BCH fork, Bitcoin had started losing hash power as supporters on both sides of the divide redirected their resources, making the BTC network a little clogged up and ultimately affecting its price. In that sense, it’s fairly safe to opine that the current hash rate war between BCHABC and BCHSV could play out in Bitcoin’s favor since whichever side wins will end up stabilizing the network, boosting the total hash rate, and causing a Bitcoin bull run.


Source
Author: Nick James
Image Credit

Litecoin [LTC] creator, Charlie Lee says: ABC vs SV fork will test the Nakamoto Consensus

On November 14, Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin, posted a tweet about the Bitcoin Cash hard fork which is scheduled today. He stated that the fork will be a good real-world test of the Nakamoto consensus. The crypto-community is filled with speculations about the upcoming fork of Bitcoin cash, which will cause it to fork into Bitcoin ABC [supported by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu] and Bitcoin SV [supported by Craig Wright].

Charlie Lee, in his tweet, spoke about miners moving back to mining Bitcoin if BCH dies, and an entity gaining enough hash power to execute a 51% attack on the competing fork.

The ‘Hash War’, so called because the upcoming fork has a conflict of interest between Jihan Wu and Craig Wright. The person who controls the majority hash power after the fork will have the upper hand, thus the fork with the highest hash power will be validated and accepted.

Nakamoto consensus is a set of rules defined by Satoshi Nakamoto in the Bitcoin whitepaper, which determines which block is validated and added to the blockchain. The blocks are added by miners through PoW.

The voting consensus defined in the Bitcoin whitepaper is very similar to the election of the president, i.e., one CPU is equivalent to one vote and Proof-of-Work [PoW]. Any alteration or addition to the Bitcoin network has to be implemented by hash power, so without the hash power, it is impossible to come at a unanimous decision. The Bitcoin whitepaper states the same:

“Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains”

According to Lee, if either of the teams, gain enough mining power, they could fatally damage the forks by executing a 51% attack. If the miners gain control of the hash power above 50%, it means that they could stop the transactions from going on the block, thus stopping payments between parties.

Additionally, they would have enough hash rate to reverse the transactions. Since they have control of the network, they could also double spend the coins. So successfully gaining hash rate by either party could be used to destroy the competing fork.


Source
Author:  Akash Girimath
Image Credit

Bitcoin Cash (BCH): 5 Possible Scenarios after Contentious Hard Fork

On November 15, Bitcoin Cash braces for the “hash wars,” essentially an expensive, sustained 51% attack aimed at taking over the coin.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is facing a watershed moment given that the first Bitcoin (BTC) hard fork has left the community and miners split over the future direction of the network. This time, however, the attempt to steer the course of the coin would take the form of a 51% attack, testing the understanding for network consensus.

A 51% attack is often viewed as disastrous for the credibility of a coin, allowing miners to alter the distributed ledger, double-spend, or perform other actions on the network. The way the Bitcoin Cash SV version would be implemented is precisely this: sustained mining of an alternative chain. However, the version of Graig Wright will have only 182 nodes to run against 1,103 ABC nodes.

Taking Bitcoin’s history as an example, the nodes signaling their allegiance is a form of consensus. At least in the case of the SegWit2X wars for influence, it was not hashrate but nodes that defined the dominance of one version over the other.

But the attempt to take over Bitcoin Cash is hostile. Here are the possibilities following the switch of 72% of the Bitcoin Cash hashrate to the SV version.

Bitcoin Cash dies: BCH becomes a coin with two separate ledgers, under a constant 51% attack. No one is certain which version would survive. With no replay protection, siding with one version could mean a total loss. Chaos on exchanges ensues. No one can tell how long the hash wars may continue, but, in effect, the supporting sides would mine blocks and receive rewards of an asset that may not exist.

One of the versions capitulates: The hash wars could end if one of the chains raises the white flag. However, it is unknown who would be the arbiter of the winning chain, and both may try to produce “the longer chain.” Exchanges may become arbiters as some are ready to accept one version over the other. There is no timeframe for deciding which chain would be longer, but even one block could suffice. Nodes, however, are not enough to define a version’s dominance in the final analysis. Based on the Bitcoin white paper, the principle of deciding on the version of the blockchain entails both nodes and miners. As it says there, “The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.”

Wright has promised a never-ending attack:

Both versions split off: It is possible that two versions of Bitcoin Cash survive. There are different scenarios for this. The supporters of Bitcoin Cash SV seem more adamant about taking over the ticker and posing as “the original Bitcoin Cash.” At the same time, the other version may not admit defeat and may proceed to create a new digital asset. This would be a best-case scenario since holders of BCH could end up owning two types of digital assets, both with a chance to show up on exchanges. It is impossible to predict which version would be deemed more valuable, and the market would decide which the dominant one is.

Bitcoin Cash ABC changes PoW: In case the attack becomes too long and too expensive, the impossibility to save the ABC version by brute force mining may lead to an emergency upgrade. Talks of a possible proof-of-work (PoW) change, in essence making the chain independent, may leave the SV version free to mine the old type of blocks while having no way to take over the ABC version.

Litecoin’s Charlie Lee was skeptical of this scenario:

The SV version gets defeated: Defeat for the Satoshi’s Vision version may come by way of emergency mining from Bitmain. Recently, Roger Ver suggested he may redirect hashing power from the Bitcoin.com mining pooldespite users’ wishes to defend the ABC version. There are also expectations that Bitmain will step up to ensure the stability and continuation of a BCH version. Protecting a stash of one billion coins may be incentive enough for Bitmain to burn money on mining and defend the version of a blockchain.

Hours before the fork, BCHSV, the pre-fork asset, fell toward $167 hours after briefly “flippening” the ABC version. BCHABC trades at above $278. BCH prices plunged to $427 before recovering to $445.88.

The hard fork for the ABC version is expected at 4:40 UTC on November 15, which is also the potential hour for the launch of the “hash wars.”


Source
Author: Christine Masters
Image Credit