3 ms·
> That said, after the fork I thought things would cool down but I was wrong The issue is that both chains compete directly for hash power, since their hash me
by cesarb 9y ago
> That said, after the fork I thought things would cool down but I was wrong
The issue is that both chains compete directly for hash power, since their hash mechanism is identical. If every miner is "rational" (for a simplified definition of "rational"), they would all mine on the most profitable chain, and the least profitable chain would instantly stop working. That is, the continued existence of BTC is an existential threat to BCH, and the continued existence of BCH is an existential threat to BTC. Therefore, those who have a stake on either of those chains feel threatened by the other chain.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoYou're underestimating the power of speculation and greed. You scenario will never happen as long as human nature doesn't change. If too many people move to one chain, the speculative expected outcome of the other chain will rise, leading some people to switch back, etc. This is the very reason why Bitcoin works.
- sliverstorm 9y agoYou really don't need much hash power to make the network work. Remember in the very early days it ran on a couple CPU miners.
- nosuchthing 9y agoThat's not how it works. When computational hash power leaves the network, the difficulty won't readjust and transactions will slow down and clog for at least 2 weeks unless computational hash power returns.