The Fragility of BCH and BSV: A Comparison with BTC
In recent discussions surrounding cryptocurrencies, Matthew Crowder of Trade University presents a compelling argument about the fragility of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) relative to Bitcoin (BTC). While BTC stands as the original and more secure form of Bitcoin, BCH and BSV are labeled as failed forks that have succumbed to market forces, trending towards zero compared to BTC.
Crowder emphasizes the importance of security when storing savings in the crypto world. He likens the selection of a cryptocurrency to choosing a safe to store money, advocating for the strongest option available. Just as a steel safe outperforms weaker materials like straw or wood, BTC's robust security measures distinguish it from BCH and BSV.
The Hash Rate: A Key Indicator of Security
A critical metric in assessing the security of any cryptocurrency is its hash rate. Mining cryptocurrencies involve computing power to solve complex algorithms; a higher hash rate suggests greater security. Crowder elaborates on the SHA-256 hashing algorithm, employed by BTC, BCH, and BSV.
He breaks down the hash rates of the three cryptocurrencies in question:
The stark difference reveals that BTC's hash rate exceeds BCH by 197 times and BSV by 555 times, marking a significant power disparity. This difference is crucial because it makes BCH and BSV susceptible to attacks from BTC miners.
The Threat of Attacks From BTC Miners
Crowder warns that just 0.5% of BTC's mining power can be redirected to attack BCH or BSV, rendering these networks vulnerable to various forms of attacks such as double spends or denial of service attacks. He explains that an ‘empty block attack,’ where transactions are not included in blocks, can severely disrupt BCH and BSV's functionality.
The consequences are clear: BCH and BSV operate like weak vaults that can be easily breached by BTC miners, while BTC stands strong as the foremost secure cryptocurrency within this ecosystem.
The Implications of Weak Hash Rates
Having a low hash rate not only invites attacks; it can also lead to disastrous situations. Crowder cites reports of attacks on BSV, highlighting past incidents where an unknown miner executed orchestrated attacks leading to network insecurity. He cites events from August 2021 and late 2022, illustrating how BSV had to rely on traditional legal measures to address issues stemming from weak network security.
This reliance on legal action contradicts the fundamental ethos of the cryptocurrency world, which typically promotes decentralization and autonomy without interference from external authorities.
The Centralized Nature of BSV’s Issues
Crowder points out that BSV's response to these attacks through legal avenues indicates a degree of centralization that is concerning. This contrasts sharply with BTC, where decentralized principles prevent such measures and maintain the integrity of the network.
Ultimately, Crowder argues that the market has spoken regarding BCH and BSV, leading them to trend downwards against BTC. His concluding message emphasizes the importance of holding cryptocurrencies with robust hash rates, as investing in BCH or BSV equates to storing savings in inadequate safes—definitely a risk not worth taking.
As the discussion concludes, Crowder invites viewers to join the conversation and engage further, underscoring the importance of understanding the underlying dynamics that govern the cryptocurrency space and making informed decisions.
Part 1/6:
The Fragility of BCH and BSV: A Comparison with BTC
In recent discussions surrounding cryptocurrencies, Matthew Crowder of Trade University presents a compelling argument about the fragility of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) relative to Bitcoin (BTC). While BTC stands as the original and more secure form of Bitcoin, BCH and BSV are labeled as failed forks that have succumbed to market forces, trending towards zero compared to BTC.
Understanding Security in Cryptocurrencies
Part 2/6:
Crowder emphasizes the importance of security when storing savings in the crypto world. He likens the selection of a cryptocurrency to choosing a safe to store money, advocating for the strongest option available. Just as a steel safe outperforms weaker materials like straw or wood, BTC's robust security measures distinguish it from BCH and BSV.
The Hash Rate: A Key Indicator of Security
A critical metric in assessing the security of any cryptocurrency is its hash rate. Mining cryptocurrencies involve computing power to solve complex algorithms; a higher hash rate suggests greater security. Crowder elaborates on the SHA-256 hashing algorithm, employed by BTC, BCH, and BSV.
He breaks down the hash rates of the three cryptocurrencies in question:
Part 3/6:
BCH: 1,760 Petahashes per second
BTC: 347,000 Petahashes per second
The stark difference reveals that BTC's hash rate exceeds BCH by 197 times and BSV by 555 times, marking a significant power disparity. This difference is crucial because it makes BCH and BSV susceptible to attacks from BTC miners.
The Threat of Attacks From BTC Miners
Crowder warns that just 0.5% of BTC's mining power can be redirected to attack BCH or BSV, rendering these networks vulnerable to various forms of attacks such as double spends or denial of service attacks. He explains that an ‘empty block attack,’ where transactions are not included in blocks, can severely disrupt BCH and BSV's functionality.
Part 4/6:
The consequences are clear: BCH and BSV operate like weak vaults that can be easily breached by BTC miners, while BTC stands strong as the foremost secure cryptocurrency within this ecosystem.
The Implications of Weak Hash Rates
Having a low hash rate not only invites attacks; it can also lead to disastrous situations. Crowder cites reports of attacks on BSV, highlighting past incidents where an unknown miner executed orchestrated attacks leading to network insecurity. He cites events from August 2021 and late 2022, illustrating how BSV had to rely on traditional legal measures to address issues stemming from weak network security.
Part 5/6:
This reliance on legal action contradicts the fundamental ethos of the cryptocurrency world, which typically promotes decentralization and autonomy without interference from external authorities.
The Centralized Nature of BSV’s Issues
Crowder points out that BSV's response to these attacks through legal avenues indicates a degree of centralization that is concerning. This contrasts sharply with BTC, where decentralized principles prevent such measures and maintain the integrity of the network.
Conclusion: The Market's Verdict
Part 6/6:
Ultimately, Crowder argues that the market has spoken regarding BCH and BSV, leading them to trend downwards against BTC. His concluding message emphasizes the importance of holding cryptocurrencies with robust hash rates, as investing in BCH or BSV equates to storing savings in inadequate safes—definitely a risk not worth taking.
As the discussion concludes, Crowder invites viewers to join the conversation and engage further, underscoring the importance of understanding the underlying dynamics that govern the cryptocurrency space and making informed decisions.