Bitcoin Cash has its origin as a hard fork from Bitcoin. It is technically and structurally very similar to Bitcoin, but with one major difference: block size.
In the eyes of Bitcoin Cash supporters, Segregated Witness wasn’t an adequate solution to Bitcoin’s scalability problem. As a response to the deficiency they saw in SegWit, Bitcoin Cash was created and designed to pack 8MB of data into each block and to process 116 transactions per second on average. While transaction speed is greatly increased with BCH, the larger block size also requires more processing power for nodes to support the blockchain network. So why not just make the blocks much bigger? That would make the network much faster, but extremely restrictive in terms of who could run a node, verify new blocks on the blockchain, and support the network. The debate about block size essentially boils down to speed versus decentralization and which of the two is more desirable. Large institutions, organizations, or BCH businesses are able to consolidate the type of processing power required for large block sizes. In contrast, it would be much more difficult for individuals to amass sufficient processing power to handle large blocks. This discrepancy threatens to create an oligopoly (where processing power is consolidated in the hands of a few key players), which ultimately endangers the decentralized nature of the blockchain. A healthy mix of decentralized, distributed, independent verification is what makes the blockchain secure and reliable so, in a nutshell, more nodes equals greater network security.
Bitcoin Cash is settled using a larger block size (which is 4-8 times larger than BTC, depending on the use of Segregated Witness) to process transactions more quickly. These transactions are quick enough that you could make a grab-and-go retail purchase with BCH (like a cup of coffee), but if you were making a large purchase such as a car or a house, you could opt for a slower, more secure cryptocurrency like BTC.
BCH and BTC, therefore, fulfill different roles. Not every cryptocurrency is a store of value, and not every cryptocurrency needs to process data quickly to function like a credit card transaction. It makes sense to use different tools for different tasks much like using a credit card for restaurant dining and a bank transfer to buy a house. Ultimately, BCH is faster and features lower processing fees than BTC, but is still used less frequently as everyday cryptocurrency payments have yet to be widely adopted. Over time, many believe that greater awareness and complementary technological improvements and innovations will pave the way for BCH to serve as a leader in cryptocurrency payments.
