An interesting and debatable post has since been written by CCN’s P.H. Madore, who shared five reasons why they would consider BCH for daily transactions while encouraging it to consumers as well.
The five highlighted reasons include “low fees and empty blocks,” bitcoin developers’ favoritism towards smaller blocks, possible mean of saving BTC, its popularity and avoiding the notion of maximalist altogether. Bearing in mind that BCH has come across several hurdles to date, it is definitely crucial to see both positive and negative viewpoints. Hence, this piece will further develop on P.H. Madore’s reasoning for valuing BCH.
1. BCH Carries Lower Fees And Empty Blocks
P.H. Madore argues that BCH’s low fees are one of the reasons why they’d choose to transact with it on the daily. This is an obvious factor most investors are surely to consider, as the nature of retorting to digital assets is to minimize hidden fees. In addition to a lower fee of an averaged penny, BCH supposedly has more empty blocks compared to Bitcoin. The argument here is that the less/more input there is, the lower/higher the transaction fees.
2. BTC Developers’ Preference Over Smaller Blocks
According to the claims made, the Bitcoin community has allegedly been discussing matters related to decreasing block sizes. This is partly due to the fact that doing so could help introduce “networks like Lightning Network”. The reason the author sees this happening is because of the fact that “artificial scarcity” is incomparable to “real scarcity”, adding that the need for increased blocks is what led to the existence of Bitcoin forked coins.
3. Helps To Save BTC Holdings
Transaction costs are again making an appearance in this argument. While the truth hurts, BTC’s transaction fees are much higher than BCH’s. Even if investors planned to move their holdings between crypto exchanges, it would be unreasonable to do so with BTC explains P.H. Madore. This is a valid point, don’t you think?
4. BCH’s Acceptance Rate
BTC and BCH are equally accepted so the author argues that it does not seem irrational to go with the likes of the latter. This is not yet the case for Bitcoin SV [BSV], the most recent fork, as it has since lost value.
5. BTC And BTC’s Forks Almost “Equally Valid”?
P.H. Madore considers “all three versions of Bitcoin [i.e. BTC, BCH, BSV] as almost equally valid.” Besides liquidity distinguishing the three, the author argues that other factors like the innovation that arises from said communities are something to be watchful of. The author leaves investors and consumers with food for thought, i.e. “If prices are going to be this stable, why do we bother using Bitcoin currently?” That is, if there’s nothing really to lose, why not retort to existing forks is the question being asked.
Since the post has been shared, some users have responded with negative feedback. One particular user expressed shock because of the fact that BCH has crashed by nearly 95%. Another user does not seem to be convinced by the great emphasis placed on fees and block sizes, as they wonder why investors wouldn’t simply go with one that is efficient, decentralized and less prone to 51% attacks.
What are your thoughts on these reasons? Are some valid over others? Are the aforementioned users right in claiming BCH as holding no real value for daily use? Share your thoughts in the comments below!