Bitcoin Cash won't disappear completely. The possibility edges toward impossible. Paycoin—the scheme constructed by convicted felon Josh Garza—still trades on exchanges in 2018. It offered 500% compou
Bitcoin Cash won't disappear completely. The possibility edges toward impossible. Paycoin—the scheme constructed by convicted felon Josh Garza—still trades on exchanges in 2018. It offered 500% compounding interest paid in Paycoin itself. It promised partnerships that didn't exist. It claimed a $20 price floor that never materialized. Garza threatened other developers by invoking the Russian mafia. His credibility evaporated. His former backers now admit the scam. Yet Paycoin survives with 19 nodes running and a $5 million market cap. No wallet software exists for download. The website is dead. Nobody takes it seriously. Before launch, the Wall Street Journal promoted it as a potential Bitcoin usurper. That moment passed. The coin's persistence illustrates something broader: cryptocurrencies lose value and relevance but rarely get deleted entirely. They linger in suspended animation. Bitcoin Cash will follow that path if things deteriorate. Even if major players abandon the network, some operators would maintain it. The capital involved runs too deep. Day traders hunting volatility swings will stay. Hardcore believers who've committed everything won't leave. But a different question matters more: Could Bitcoin Cash become functionally irrelevant? Could it reach the point where even its supporters stop calling it the "real" Bitcoin? Short-term survival looks secure. Troubling indicators accumulate beneath the surface.
The community fractures along fundamental lines. The irony runs thick given Bitcoin Cash's origin as a split from Bitcoin itself. Craig Wright—discredited repeatedly—wants the blocksize increased from 32MB to 128MB. He's prepared to split the chain again to force it through. Bitcoin Cash has far outpaced other Bitcoin forks. The rest barely register. All have shrunk since inception. Bitcoin Cash launched with enough momentum that it still counts as significant by market cap. Every other metric trends downward. This isn't simply reflecting broader bear market conditions. Bitcoin Cash's price relative to Bitcoin—not USD—declines steadily. It launched at 0.19BTC and trades now at 0.08BTC. Transaction numbers shot up when Coinbase added BCH. They've collapsed since except during stress tests. Hashrate trended upward from the beginning through mid-July. It's been falling since.
Bitcoin Cash marketed itself on the advantages of large blocks. They handle far more transactions than Bitcoin's 1MB blocks or SegWit's expanded space. Usage contradicts the theory. Most blocks stay under 100KB. Blocks exceeding 1MB usually follow blocks under 100KB. Those transactions could have waited one block. Bitcoin Cash never needed 32MB capacity. It occasionally exceeded Bitcoin's blocksize during the 2017 bull run's peak. Before Coinbase support, a few days hit nearly 1MB average. Now blocks measure in tens of kilobytes unless someone runs a stress test.
Wright's demand to increase blocksize tenfold lacks explanation. Imagine a cruise ship growing too full. A group decides to build an even larger ship and invites passengers aboard. The logic holds. Few people switched. The new ship sits mostly empty. Room exists for future growth. That works fine. Now Wright proposes building an even bigger ship and splitting passengers between it and the original. He's become Bitcoin Cash's primary liability. Supporters initially championed him. The man definitely not Satoshi Nakamoto tears down his credibility with each incident. Stock photos showed a yacht he claimed to own. He plagiarized a "Hello World" program to prove programming ability. He confused kilobits with kilobytes. His company nChain issued patents that enraged the crypto community. Bitcoin supporters consider him an enemy. Many Bitcoin Cash followers agree. Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum's creator, suggested a fork to remove him. Ryan X Charles—known for Reddit's abandoned crypto effort—remains an exception supporting Wright's Satoshi claim. Charles acknowledges nChain funds him but says Bitmain pays more.
No one besides Wright and a few allies demands 128MB blocks. No other leaders push for it. Vitalik's practical argument held appeal: fork him out. The real question involves motive and timing. Bitcoin Cash already faces centralization issues. Not philosophically but measurably. Fewer nodes operate than Bitcoin runs. Hashing power pools among a handful of operators. Other coins centralize worse. If Bitcoin Cash wants to replace Bitcoin, it must solve this first. Another split worsens centralization, raises 51% attack risks, and makes the network less attractive to holders, speculators, and merchants.
Wright's motivation extends beyond blocksize. Bitmain built Wormhole—an off-chain smart contract system burning Bitcoin Cash for internal tokens. Lightning Network motivated Bitcoin's original split. This technology influenced Wright then. He wants his blocksize. His chain without off-chain solutions. Three leaders. Two disagree. Splits happen.
Bitcoin lacks centralized leadership. Vlad doesn't dominate. Many quasi-leaders exist without enough power to split the chain. Roger Ver forced Bitcoin Cash's split then departed. Another Bitcoin split from major miners seems unlikely now. Bitcoin Cash runs a compressed version. Handful of leaders dividing a shrinking pie. Each split cuts everyone's piece smaller.
Bitcoin Cash needs unity to threaten Bitcoin. Either followers join Wright or stay and let him go. Merchants already struggle between BTC and BCH. A Bitcoin Cash SV fork multiplies confusion. Litecoin watches nearby. No drama. No splits. Low fees. Strong team. Bitcoin users respect it. It positions itself as digital cash. It wants the alternative coin crown back. Bitcoin Cash held that position—despite Litecoin's credible claim. Another fracture kills momentum. Credibility breaks. Merchants and exchanges suffer. The window closes. Litecoin wins. Few will grieve Bitcoin Cash's departure.
