Blockstream’s Vice President Warns Investors of Possible Bitcoin Cash [BCH] Double Spending Attack

Blockchain technologies provider, Blockstream’s Vice President, Warren Togami took to his Twitter platform to caution investors of what he believes is a double spending problem about to happen for Bitcoin Cash [BCH].

The tweet found below noted that BCH’s hashrate is seeing downward trends, as it sits at about eight percent when comparing to Bitcoin [BTC]. Emphasizing on the issue of double spending, Togami also noted that this drop has the potential to create “exchange insolvency”, adding that the same was experienced by Bitcoin Gold [BTG].

Update: BCH now below 8% hashrate relative to BTC. https://t.co/HBR2tXyDh8

Real risk of double-spend causing exchange insolvency.

* 6 hours and 20 confs wasn't enough to protect against the BTG exchange theft.

* Vulnerable to single persons, intentionally or via hacked pool. https://t.co/lwsmne0YQE — Warren Togami (@wtogami) September 4, 2018

This isn’t the first time Togami expressed disapproval of BCH, as he considered the altcoin’s 12 percent hashrate and BCH transactions getting validated after one confirmation as a wrong doing. To further highlight BCH’s cons, he commented on the matter by comparing it to not only BTG but also FTC, also known as Feathercoin, a fork derived from Litecoin [LTC].

His reason for said comparison comes from the fact that the 51 percent attack felt by Feathercoin resulted in it coming down completely, making its $0.50 token worth nothing more than even a penny.

Historic parallel from 2013https://t.co/jUXqar7fzO

1/ FTC forked from LTC, competed for scrypt hashes.

2/ Like BCH, incompetent dev.

3/ Experienced crippling diff swings, added difficulty smoothing.

4* Huge reorg attack.

5* "Solved" problem with centralization.

* = Next for BCH? — Warren Togami (@wtogami) September 4, 2018

As seen by the tweet right above, Togami lists five reasons why BCH might fail just like FTC did, which include issues like the use of “scrypt hashes”, having an “incompetent” developer, seeing different “swings” which contributed to the lack of smoothness, reorganization attack and possibly centralizing its system to “solve a problem”. With all these problems, Togami is certain that a double spending attack is closer than you think.

Twitter users were not having it, as many questioned Togami’s analysis. One user who has agreed on one aspect still does not seem convinced. Dubbed Jonathan Silverblood (@monsterbitar), the Twitter user said the following:

“I agree that a low percentage looks dangerous, but did you include opportunity costs when doing the comparison? I.e., what was the opportunity cost of performing the re-org BTG? Does BCH with sha256 rather than scrypt have similar opportunity costs?”

Are you convinced with Togami’s arguments or do you think he failed to cover every inch of detail prior to voicing such a strong statement?