
Bitcoin Cash Soaring to Record High as It’s More Profitable to Mine Than Bitcoin - Tomc25
https://www.fxempire.com/news/article/bitcoin-cash-soaring-to-record-high-above-900-as-its-more-profitable-to-mine-than-bitcoin-430909
======
RichardHeart
Inevitable. Mining profit reaches equilibrium across all coins mining hardware
works for. :) It should land at parity at some point. As miners join up for
the increased reward, the reward gets divided across more parties, and thus
reduced per individual.

Thus regardless of the price of the coin, the profit in mining it will be
equalized across coins, because of the fixed reward divided by total mining
power.

#Bitcoin has wider infrastructure to turn your coins into cash, and other
network effects which are strong, which will help it overcome the difficulty
adjustment downward retargeting advantage Bitcoincash has.

------
cuchoi
More profitable to mine should mean more supply of Bitcoin Cash, lowering the
price. What am I missing?

~~~
ve55
If you set your miners to Bitcoin Cash instead of Bitcoin, the current US-
equivalent amount of concurrency you will get will be higher.

But, that does not take into account a lot of other variables:

One is that as more miners switch to Bitcoin Cash, the difficulty will
increase, making it less profitable.

Two, although minor, is that some minors may politically disagree with Bitcoin
Cash due to its radically large block size, and be dis-incentivized to mine it
for that reason.

Third, most importantly, is that you cannot sell Bitcoins right after you mine
them. You have to wait for a very large amount of confirmations[1]. So if you
start mining Bitcoin Cash with all of your resources, then the price crashes,
you may end up with large losses, compared to if you had stuck with Bitcoin.

To add information about your question, the amount of bitcoins produced in
blocks is very low: 12.5, currently. With a supply over 16.5 million, it
barely makes a dent in it unless you give it years.

[1]: [https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1991/what-is-
the...](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1991/what-is-the-block-
maturation-time) [2]: [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-
cash/](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/)

~~~
Animats
_Two, although minor, is that some minors (sic) may politically disagree with
Bitcoin Cash due to its radically large block size, and be dis-incentivized to
mine it for that reason._

That's backwards. Bitcoin Cash has the old, smaller block size.

 _Third, most importantly, is that you cannot sell Bitcoins right after you
mine them. You have to wait for a very large amount of confirmations._

100 blocks is about 18 hours right now. Then you can sell.

~~~
mikedunworth
Bitcoin Cash is the new fork, and that fork has 2MB block size. Bitcoin
(Original) still has the 1MB block size. The reason it is called "Bitcoin
Cash" is because it can be used more like cash, because the transaction fees
aren't assumed to be as high because more transactions can fit into a 2MB
block, which means you and I don't have to put big fees onto each transaction
to get into that 1MB block.

The reason they did the fork was so that the fees that were making small (cash
like, e.g. buy a coffee, $10 Steam gift card, etc...) transactions impossible,
are now cost efficient because there's less bidding wars from people on the
network rushing into get their transaction confirmed ASAP.

Super interesting to see how it unfolds, but it appears that there's no
network congestion and that the network was getting spammed prior to this fork
in a means of "See. See! We need bigger blocks. That's it, we're forking. I'm
sick of this."

It can get a little "tin-foil-y" but there's theories all over the place, and
a lot of them have sound reasoning, but the tl;dr is /The network forked
/Bitcoin = 1MB blocks /Bitcoin Cash = 2MB blocks /Where things go from here is
a roll of the dice ;)

Thanks!

~~~
reefoctopus
Bitcoin cash has an adjustable block size up to 8MB. Segwit2X is the upcoming
fork with 2MB blocks on legacy bitcoin.

------
dahdum
I read this because the headline _implies_ that mining is driving the price
(untrue) but at least the article doesn't make that claim.

