To be honest, directly to everyone. there are a lot of people who used BCH and they don't have any idea about the crypto when it comes to the projects and facing issues. Some of the people here are just investing and using because BCH s
Scalable Blockchain
Transaction Fee friendly
The willingness to learn about something in BCH cannot prevent it. those people who seek for truthfulness will be given.
As a newbie in BCH, I ask someone who had the best explanation in Bitcoin Cash matters.
I ask Mr.Koush for something I want to know about BCH. and here's why I've learned from him.
" DAA AND SLP "
These words always give me a question on how it works and what is the main role in BCH.
"This is for you guys who are new in the field of BCH."
DAA
According to him.
The DAA (difficulty adjustment algorithm) is just a method to adjust for the amount hash power, that goes into the network. Remember, when I told you in my article, that miners put energy or hash power into the network? Well if more and more miners join the network, the time for one of those miners to 'find' a new block will be much shorter. Because of that, periodically the DAA changes the amount of hash power needed to create a block. It reads the last x amounts of blocks created and how fast they were created and then 'adjusts the difficulty' to have a reliable block production at around roughly 10minutes per block. If the network loses miners, and the overall hash power gets smaller, then the DAA will also adjust downwards, so that it always takes about 10minutes to find a new block.
I am not an engineer so I cannot go into more details or tell you which DAA proposal is the best choice, but it simply has to be fixed, since BCH as a minority chain (smaller Bitcoin chain) with not that much hash power than Bitcoin used to have, needs another way of accounting hash rate to get a make out the right difficulty. Right now, because many miners join the network and leave the network, changing the hash rate a lot with it, it's oscillating between many blocks per minute, versus no blocks for hours. Which is not a big issue if you want to transact BCH without waiting for confirmation. So paying with BCH is not an issue, but for example, multi-coin wallets or exchanges want to wait for confirmations on the blockchain, which can take up to a few hours, if they are unlucky. If you are a trader, it might be an issue. Imagine the price moves so that you want to buy or sell but you cannot trade your BCH on a big exchange like Binance, because you have to wait for confirmation times if you deposit it in an unlucky moment. It can also happen that you are lucky, and get many confirmations in just a few minutes, that sounds fine, but what we need is a certainty. for now, it should always be 10 minutes for 1 confirmation.
It is also stated that fixing a small issue in DAA of the Bitcoin Cash is a time consuming where there is a way to fix it by implementing avalanche.
There are trade-offs with each one. The issue for me is actually, that we are wasting effort with a little fix, while we could go on implementing Avalanche, which is an improvement of the BCH protocol that brings us instant confirmation and basically would fix the DAA problem on a sidenote. It is but a far bigger change of Bitcoin Cash and also more work to be done on it. So coming up with a fast fix now surely can still be a good idea, but I just want to state the obvious: BCH started working on Avalanche long ago and the dev teams could have been done with the work already, but the most important devs actually stopped working on it, as they were hired to work on other projects by other people. In fact, one of the developers, who worked on Avalanche now works for a blockchain called AVA, which started later to implement Avalanche. This is something noteworthy. We are still in the race and we had quite a headstart but that's about it. We need to keep running and improve on the software so that we are not left behind.
SLP
According to him.
Simple Ledger Protocol is a token system on BCH. You can create a token, just like BCH and for example, call it hiecho token. You can issue these tokens as much as you want or make the amount of those tokens limited. For example, some company gives out 1 USDH token for every USD they receive. So you can have digital US dollars on top of BCH.
How it works is also quite simple, you take a tiny fraction of BCH (just a few satoshis, less than a cent) and you put a little note on top of that BCH. For example, that note will say: "1000 hiecho token" and whenever you send around a few of those tokens, the network will read that note and know "aha, this is a SLP token from hiecho". It is called Simple Ledger Protocol because it is a very simple ledger inside or on top of the BCH Ledger. Now tokens are very widespread in the crypto-industry. For example, Ethereum (ETH) creates a lot of these. But similar to BTC, ETH also has scaling issues and at times you have to pay 50 cent fees for sending your tokens on that network. If you see how SLP works, you understand how interesting tokens can be and how much more sense they make to use if you don't have to pay 50 cents "gas" fees, like on ETH.
He stated the great plan.
The simple ledger protocol is just a very simple method of tokens. I am also looking forward to seeing Tobias Ruck implement "Mitra". Which would make BCH token system not just simple, but as powerful and dynamic as ETH, but again without the scaling issue
Let's bring ourselves into the issue of Bitcoin Cash.
As I mentioned earlier that DAA has issues in terms of BCH.
Koush thinks the biggest issue here is the social aspect.
According to him:
The issue right now as I sees it is not really the DAA itself. The issue is social. Many people want to 'vote democratically', I.e you and me, who have no idea what is the better version to vote on what to implement, instead of having the few people, who really know and actually work on it, come to a conclusion. But many people would disagree with me here. Mainly those, that think Amaury is somehow holding others off from contributing software to fix issues like the DAA. I think this is not true and that he cannot hold off people from implementing their software. I think no one should expect ABC to put in code in their own software, that they don't see fit, for whatever reason. That being said, anyone is free to even clone ABC software and put in their own code and let people mine with it. In fact, just a while ago a new Nodesoftware (BCHN) did just that and they have 3% of miners in the network using their code instead of ABC. It is their absolute right to implement whatever they want and see if people rather use their software as opposed to ABC software. This is the only way to come to a real conclusive decision, not political fights on social media.
Since people can freely use the BCH. It might increase its popularity and population of the community but the main problem is there are no resources that can be used to upgrade and fix the entire issues of BCH. For Example, BCH doesn't have many investors to pay an engineer for the BCH future features and capabilities.
The issue we have for a while now is that we don't have enough resources and no investors who would pay out professional engineers to work on things like an Avalanche. Some Investors are there of course and some get some money (in my opinion, not nearly enough) and that money seems to rather go to pay for Nodes other than ABC, which is the most used node and the node that needs the most funding, to be able to attract world-class developers. In fact, a lot of people say BCH does not need world-class developers. I think they see it as an experimental hobby project and they think there is no need to be able to pay a really good engineer, who actually would work at google for a lot of money. Instead, they want to find someone who does this as a side job. I think if that were true and so easy (Creating p2p money for the world is NOT easy) then we would see all those side job-hobby projects be used as mining nodes as well. But if you look at it today 97% of mining nodes use ABC and only 3% use BCHN. And BCHN is a clone of ABC with some minor changes. There was actually another node, that has completely lost all shares it had of miners using them. They are called Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). I just found this out today, I remember they had a lot of miners using their software, but it was so unreliable that they have ZERO miners using them right now. If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what does. In fact, BU is in my opinion filled with hobby-developers, and even with a lot of funding that they got years ago they weren't able to be at least as good as ABC, while ABC has a lot fewer people working on it with a lot less money donated to them. A sad state of affairs that should make people think twice before they attack ABC.
And also the huge concern here is those people and investor who attracted by BCH was manipulated by the dominant coins. In the matter of political aspects.
"like murmuring that BCH is a scam even they don't really have a piece of concrete evidence and knowledge about BCH"
They just want to do this and rely back on the dominant coins.
as I see here that as part of the community we must prove that Bitcoin Cash can stand by its own foot and prove that it will survive the issues.
Benefit on promoting Bitcoin Cash is to have an investor which really helps the BCH to improved.
ADDITIONAL INFO REGARDING FOR BCH.
what is ABC?
Koush really explains it to me and I'm so lucky to meet him.
ABC is the name of the developer team and their mining node software, that successfully forked from BTC. ABC stands for 'Adjustable Blocksize Cap'. It emphasizes on increasing the block size of Bitcoin on demand, while BTC chain stood at not increasing the block size at all and keep the limit at 1MB. BCH has right now a hard cap on 32MB blocks. Should we get to such an amount of use that 32MB big blocks are mined to include all the transactions, then ABC will make sure to increase the block size even further according to demand. ABC is aiming for Gigabyte blocks.
Without ABC and the work of Amaury Séchet, who is their lead dev, and of course some others who worked on this, we wouldn't have had Bitcoin Cash BCH and most of the industry would not be challenged of the myths, that 'blockchains can't scale'. BCH is the living refutation of that. Problem is, scaling is not the only problem we face. As always, Bitcoin's biggest attack vector is the social aspect. You can fool enough people, users, and miners, just as they fooled people into keeping Bitcoin BTC blocks small. We need to be vigilant and always think twice if we 'follow' anyone's decision. People like you and I have to follow someone, of course, we cannot contribute code. But we can listen closely and not fall for the people, that I tend to call 'politicians' and 'the mob'. People like that are everywhere. Not just in the crypto industry.
Since a lot of people here used BCH and this one is one of the deepest information that you need to encounter.
I hope that this one can clarify your questions in mind for those people like me new in bitcoin cash.
It was explained in a simple way. And I hope you enjoyed it.
Thank you Mr @Koush for the great explanation. Until next time.
I've known something new at your article. Sir @Koush has amazing ideas as always. Everyone of us has different opinions. Still reading one another ideas can bring to a greater one.