The scaling debate is all about block size and if all transactions has to be on chain. BTC vs BCH is the perfect example here, the 1mb block size which is the cause for the high fees (market value by supply vs demand) is not there to say fuck you, it exist in order to keep the size of the blockchain reasonably large.
Originally there was no plan to have a block size limit because back in 2008 most people used desktop PC's with ~1TB hard drives. SSD's was still new and expensive for large size but became preferred because they where faster, this wasn't taken into consideration into the original design of Bitcoin.
First now almost 15 years later, SSD's is finally catching up and Moores law is back for SSD's storage size vs price. Now if you're gonna remove the block size or let it increase gradually you'll have two major problems, low transaction fees makes it cheap to spam the chain and lot's of crap will be stored on chain because there's no mechanism to prevent that.
The second problem is the actual storage space, if nodes are not run by regular people on their home PC's then you'll lose the decentralization. Most people today can store 200GB of data, but if you use BCH's approach and apply the same amount of transactions as processed by Visa or Mastercard we're talking 200TB of data, that means only big cloud providers will have enough storage to keep the whole chain, unless sharding or other technologies is implemented.
Many alt coins have chosen other solutions to keep things decentralized while also having all transactions on chain. BTC and ETH is now switching to parallel chains and off chain transactions which is both cheaper and faster. Because BTC have higher transaction fees, miners choose to mine it, which is a major threat to BCH which is still using the same algorithm.
Any big BTC miner could at any time launch a 51% attack against BCH, Ethereum classic got attacked this way. You'll just have to avoid on chain transactions, but also avoid vulnerable forks. They're dangerous even if they're cheaper to transact. Instead of BCH try Litecoin which uses scrypt, or Monero which offers privacy and a ASIC resistant algorithm, it also uses dynamic block size which is a nice balanced solution.
Something tells me if BCH could be easily 51% attacked, it would have been already. The rational of 1MB BTC block size limits just doesn't hold water to anyone who really thinks critically about the justifications small blockers have made. The addition of "replace by fee" was the clear indication that using bitcoin for commerce was a threat to traditional banking and it needed to be stopped. BCH is what Bitcoin used to be and what it was intended to be. Low fees, "lightening" fast transactions on chain. Anyone that actually uses bitcoin would quickly realize that BCH just works.
It's not an if, it's a fact, both BTC and BCH are using SHA256 as mining algorithm and the majority of miners abandoned BCH for BTC. Neither is very good when it comes to scaling for their own reasons.
BCH needs to change mining algorithm to become secure and the lightning network needs to go mainstream for BTC to succeed. Until then you might as well avoid them both and use alt coins instead with better solutions to the scaling problem already from the beginning.
You might be right, but with no artificial cap on block size, bch has a greater path to scaling before there needs to be a change in the hashing algorithm.
The scaling debate is all about block size and if all transactions has to be on chain. BTC vs BCH is the perfect example here, the 1mb block size which is the cause for the high fees (market value by supply vs demand) is not there to say fuck you, it exist in order to keep the size of the blockchain reasonably large.
Originally there was no plan to have a block size limit because back in 2008 most people used desktop PC's with ~1TB hard drives. SSD's was still new and expensive for large size but became preferred because they where faster, this wasn't taken into consideration into the original design of Bitcoin.
First now almost 15 years later, SSD's is finally catching up and Moores law is back for SSD's storage size vs price. Now if you're gonna remove the block size or let it increase gradually you'll have two major problems, low transaction fees makes it cheap to spam the chain and lot's of crap will be stored on chain because there's no mechanism to prevent that.
The second problem is the actual storage space, if nodes are not run by regular people on their home PC's then you'll lose the decentralization. Most people today can store 200GB of data, but if you use BCH's approach and apply the same amount of transactions as processed by Visa or Mastercard we're talking 200TB of data, that means only big cloud providers will have enough storage to keep the whole chain, unless sharding or other technologies is implemented.
Many alt coins have chosen other solutions to keep things decentralized while also having all transactions on chain. BTC and ETH is now switching to parallel chains and off chain transactions which is both cheaper and faster. Because BTC have higher transaction fees, miners choose to mine it, which is a major threat to BCH which is still using the same algorithm.
Any big BTC miner could at any time launch a 51% attack against BCH, Ethereum classic got attacked this way. You'll just have to avoid on chain transactions, but also avoid vulnerable forks. They're dangerous even if they're cheaper to transact. Instead of BCH try Litecoin which uses scrypt, or Monero which offers privacy and a ASIC resistant algorithm, it also uses dynamic block size which is a nice balanced solution.
Something tells me if BCH could be easily 51% attacked, it would have been already. The rational of 1MB BTC block size limits just doesn't hold water to anyone who really thinks critically about the justifications small blockers have made. The addition of "replace by fee" was the clear indication that using bitcoin for commerce was a threat to traditional banking and it needed to be stopped. BCH is what Bitcoin used to be and what it was intended to be. Low fees, "lightening" fast transactions on chain. Anyone that actually uses bitcoin would quickly realize that BCH just works.
It's not an if, it's a fact, both BTC and BCH are using SHA256 as mining algorithm and the majority of miners abandoned BCH for BTC. Neither is very good when it comes to scaling for their own reasons.
BCH needs to change mining algorithm to become secure and the lightning network needs to go mainstream for BTC to succeed. Until then you might as well avoid them both and use alt coins instead with better solutions to the scaling problem already from the beginning.
You might be right, but with no artificial cap on block size, bch has a greater path to scaling before there needs to be a change in the hashing algorithm.