BCC, Is This A Credible Option?
The idea of a fork of Bitcoin Core increasing block size is appealing to network members who believe that SegWit will not solve (or hurt) scalability and cost issues, but also for those who feel that this event will only slightly affect the price of bitcoin (Bitcoin Cash ABC Core) and will simply give them access to a free altcoin . However, the relevance of such a project is not obvious: why push the network to the division while the debate about scalability of the protocol is pacified?
If Bitcoin ABC / Bitcoin Cash was initially thought of as a backup plan to secure the legacy chain of Bitcoin after a chain split that may arise from the August 1 UASF – risk became null – now some minors have decided to continue the initiative until its activation. Bitcoin is a network where peers who do not trust each other at the outset can make transactions thanks to a consensus protocol that is resistant to Byzantine failures: lack of trust prevails and many people suspect that Bitmain and others have developed a bluff in activating the BIP 91, to then separate from the chain including SegWit.
This theory of conspiracy has been denied by Bitmain who asserts that the UAHF is only a process to intervene only in case of UASF. It is stated in their last post that Bitmain does not have enough shares in ViaBTC’s capital to influence their decision, and that the project is now supported by big block supporters .
Given the success of SegWit2X, Bitmain assured that the company will continue to mine via the BTC1 client (SegWit2X) on all its mining pools (AntPool, BTC.com, ConnectBTC, Bitcoin Cash ABC Core) but does not exclude to support Bitcoin Cash in addition if this fork proposed by the supporters of the big blocks is successful.
It is difficult to fix the probability of activation of this hard fork on August 1st, but it is clear that it is not negligible. It may even seem a matter of fact if one evaluates the hash power able to deploy it.
From the point of view of the user, as in any fork , his tokens will be split. The holder of bitcoins will therefore end up with free BCCs.
The precautions concerning the control of private keys apply just as in the case of a chain split : if their management is entrusted to a platform that does not support the BCC, the user is not assured to have access to these latter. The precautions for replay attacks are also essential: in case of fork , it is better to wait until the situation is stable before making transactions (setting up protections against attacks replay on the two chains and separation of the corners). Transactions made in BTC are not theoretically valid under Bitcoin ABC rules (although care must be taken not to change them), but the operation of separating corners from the BCC chain is complicated. The main suppliers of wallets should insure it (read this post on Ledger’s blog) as well as exchange platforms.
It is impossible to predict the impact of such a hard fork on the respective prices of the two tokens , even if, of course, a typical Ethereum / Ethereum Classic scenario is desirable (the cumulative value of the two chains is now much greater to the value of the parent chain a year ago).
Let’s prepare the popcorn, business to follow!