They believe that bitcoin is a storehouse of value, not currency, and digital gold is not digital cash. Rather, proponents of bitcoin (BCH) believe that bitcoin is destined to be used as an exchange currency and as a store of value, and supporters of BCH want their money to be used for coffee, daily consumption, and whatever You may think, to be paid for.
Source: img
Source of disputes between BTC and BCH:
To answer this question correctly, we must explain some technical differences between BTC and BCH. On August 1, 2017, Bitcoin Cash was hard-forked from the Bitcoin network, meaning that from founding block to block height 478557, BTC and BCH share the same transaction history, but any subsequent transactions transaction will not be shared between the two networks.
Apart from individual transaction records after August 2017, the main real difference between BTC and BCH is that BTC still sets a block cap at 1 MB (1.7M), while BCH current block size is around 8 MB.
So why is block size so important? The way bitcoin works are that when transactions are first transmitted over the network, they are still "unconfirmed" and queued in the "waiting area" of the "memory pool" until they are a new one. Do not pack in blocks. The more new blocks packed with transaction information are updated and synchronized by network nodes, the less likely the transaction will be returned. This is why exchanges usually require multiple "confirmations" before deposits and withdrawals.
RBF and double-spending transactions:
Because the BTC block limit is small and the current transaction demand is large enough, the new block may not have enough space to be packed to confirm all transactions, and the remaining transactions to pack them Will have to wait for the next block. Therefore, Bitcoin Core has created a "highest value" model, where transactions with the highest transaction fees will prejudge transactions with the lowest price. They implement a new mechanism called the "fee replacement method" (RBF). In this way, if a user sends a transaction during a BTC network congestion, and the transaction is not confirmed, you can send it to another transaction. BTC, but offers higher transaction fees allowing it to enter the next block faster.
But unfortunately, RBF has fatal flaws. RBF is more likely to have double-spending transactions. In fact, this payment also kills the application scenario of BTC in the form of cash. Suppose you order coffee in a cafe and send an amount, your coffee will be delivered to you immediately. Then, once you leave the store, send a new transaction with the same money, but the transaction fee is higher, not to the address of the coffee wallet, but to an address that you control. This is because due to BTC network congestion, your queuing transactions are not confirmed, and due to RBF, the transactions contained in the next block are the fastest to be confirmed, with the original low speed queuing transactions completely. Are removed, and the café will never receive funding. You can have your coffee, which executes a successful double-spending transaction. (BTC demonstration video on the external network has proved RBF double spending problem)
Due to RBF flaws, BTC is no longer suitable as a payment method. In fact, it is easy for an attacker to double the cost and harm the trader. If you are a merchant who accepts BTC, it is recommended that you wait for at least one confirmation to ensure that you have insurance. Of course, no one is willing to wait ten minutes (or more) in the store to wait for the payment to pass.
