In a recent online discussion hosted on the popular cryptocurrency forum _8btc_, Dr. Liu Changyong—renowned economist and influential voice in the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community—shared his insights on the future trajectories of Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and Ethereum (ETH). Holding a PhD in economics from Peking University and recognized as a top contributor on _8btc_, Liu has been deeply involved in blockchain research since 2013. His perspectives, shaped by rigorous economic analysis, offer valuable clarity in the ongoing debate over blockchain scalability, decentralization, and real-world utility.
This AMA session brought together key figures including Jack Liao, creator of Bitcoin Gold (BTG), and Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP, creating a dynamic dialogue around the technical and philosophical differences between competing digital currencies.
Hard Forks: Risk or Innovation?
One of the central themes of the discussion was the role and safety of hard forks in blockchain evolution.
Question: What’s your stance on BTC vs. BCH? And isn’t there a valid reason Core resists increasing the block size limit? Isn’t scaling more complex than big blockers realize?
Liu Changyong: I’m fully committed to BCH. To address your second point—no, scaling isn’t as dangerous as Core suggests. The successful launch of BCH proved that hard forks are not catastrophic. In fact, they’re essential tools for innovation. The idea that hard forks endanger the network is a narrative pushed by Core to maintain control. The truth is, users should have the freedom to choose their preferred protocol.
👉 Discover how blockchain innovations are shaping the future of finance.
Question: If someone controls both hash power and code, can they manipulate the difficulty algorithm for profit?
Liu Changyong: Mining centralization is often overstated. Those with significant hash power—like Bitmain—have the most to lose if the ecosystem collapses. That’s why they support sustainable scaling through hard forks. The Core roadmap, which favors off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network, undermines Proof-of-Work (PoW) and threatens miner incentives.
While Bitcoin ABC leads BCH development, contributions come from multiple teams—including Bitcoin XT, BU, Classic, RSK, and Yours.org. For instance, Bitpay proposed a new address format before ABC adopted it, and Amaury Séchet later introduced Bech32 support. This collaborative approach ensures that BCH evolves based on market demand rather than ideological dogma.
Ethical Concerns: Infinite Forks and EDA
With numerous Bitcoin forks emerging—Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Super Bitcoin—the community has questioned whether BCH opened a Pandora’s box.
Question: Doesn’t the rise of “forked coins” undermine Bitcoin’s value? Is infinite forking ethical?
Liu Changyong: Anyone is free to fork Bitcoin. If you believe in a different vision, code it yourself. The market will decide which chains survive. Forks without user adoption will naturally fail. However, pre-mined coins are unethical—they represent unfair distribution and erode trust.
Jack Liao raised concerns about BCH’s Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA), asking: If pre-mining is unethical, isn’t EDA also unethical? Wasn’t it designed to help Bitmain dominate mining?
Liu Changyong: The EDA was a temporary survival mechanism to prevent chain stagnation when BCH had low hash power. It allowed miners to switch to BCH when profitable, then return to BTC when rewards dropped. While this caused hash rate volatility, it wasn’t designed for manipulation.
Miners like BTC.TOP, Viabtc, and Hong Kong Hostel acted in the network’s interest, sometimes sacrificing profits to keep BCH secure. The EDA has since been replaced in the November 13 hard fork with a more stable difficulty adjustment algorithm. Now, block times are consistently between 10 and 20 minutes—signaling improved stability.
Why BCH After BU and SegWit2x Failed?
Critics argue that big-block supporters lack consistency—shifting from Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) to SegWit2x, then to BCH.
Question: You supported BU, then 2X, now BCH. Don’t you have principles? What’s BCH’s roadmap? Why is it better?
Liu Changyong: My principles are rooted in logic, not loyalty. In mid-2016, I supported Core and opposed Craig Wright and Chinese miners. But after deep analysis, I realized Core’s roadmap leads to a permissioned settlement layer for institutions—not a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for everyone.
Core follows Blockstream’s vision and dismisses user feedback. BCH, by contrast, is market-driven. It prioritizes user experience, fast transactions, and low fees. It doesn’t lock itself into a rigid roadmap but remains open to innovations like smart contracts and layer-2 solutions.
BCH is a market-oriented currency. BTC is a Core-dominated elite-only coin.
Question: Isn’t BCH’s price and hash rate manipulated by whales?
Liu Changyong: Price volatility stems from low awareness. Most people don’t yet grasp BCH’s potential as global digital cash. As usability improves—through better wallets, payment apps, and merchant adoption—demand will grow organically. Expect wild swings initially, much like BTC in 2011–2014. But long-term value comes from utility, not speculation.
Is BCH the Real Bitcoin?
A defining moment came when Jiang Zhuoer declared: BCH is Bitcoin.
Question: Didn’t BCH supporters promise not to steal BTC’s brand? Now you claim it’s the real Bitcoin?
Jiang Zhuoer: BCH follows Satoshi’s original whitepaper—peer-to-peer electronic cash with large blocks. It is Bitcoin.
Liu Changyong: I’ve always believed BCH represents the true vision of Bitcoin. Initially, the community was cautious—positioning BCH as a backup in case SegWit failed catastrophically. But now, with growing exchange listings, wallet support, and user adoption, confidence has surged. BCH isn’t just an alternative—it’s emerging as the legitimate successor.
Question: Even if BTC falls, can BCH carry its legacy?
Liu Changyong: Early BTC thrived on faith alone. Today, BCH competes on market fundamentals—real use cases, transaction volume, developer activity.
Bitcoin Cash now relies on market, not faith.
Governance: Avoiding Centralization
With upgrades led by Bitcoin ABC, some worry about centralized decision-making.
Question: ABC pushed an upgrade despite objections. Is this process democratic?
Liu Changyong: Three proposals were considered; ABC chose its own. This sparked debate—a healthy sign. The community is now discussing ways to ensure inclusive governance and prevent dominance by any single team.
👉 Explore platforms enabling decentralized innovation today.
Could ETH Outcompete BTC or BCH?
The conversation expanded to Ethereum’s role in the ecosystem.
Question: Should BCH integrate RSK for smart contracts? Any technical barriers?
Liu Changyong: The BCH community welcomes innovation—RSK, smart contracts, new features are all under consideration. With higher block limits, BCH has room to scale functionality without sacrificing security or speed.
Question: Is ETH centralized? Can it surpass BTC?
Liu Changyong: Vitalik Buterin holds significant influence over Ethereum, especially during hard forks or consensus changes. While this enables fast decision-making, it raises concerns about censorship resistance—especially for enterprise adoption.
ETH and BCH serve different purposes. ETH is flexible, app-focused; BCH is purpose-built as sound money and digital cash with fixed supply and strong security. Neither will “surpass” the other in every metric—they target different markets.
ETH will not surpass bitcoin. They each have their own goals and market.
Impact of CME Bitcoin Futures
With CME launching Bitcoin futures, speculation grew about institutional impact.
Question: Won’t futures bring massive capital to BTC? Could this hurt BCH?
Liu Changyong: Positive news boosts BTC’s price—temporarily. Institutional inflows may inflate valuations. But beware: futures also enable large players to short or dump BTC at peak moments.
History shows such events can trigger sharp corrections. While BTC may see short-term gains, long-term success depends on adoption—not speculation.
👉 Stay ahead of market trends with real-time data and insights.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why does Liu support BCH over BTC?
A: Liu believes BTC under Core has deviated from Satoshi’s vision by focusing on off-chain solutions and limiting block size. He sees BCH as a truly scalable, user-focused peer-to-peer cash system.
Q: Is mining centralization a threat to BCH?
A: Liu argues that large miners have strong incentives to protect the network’s health. Centralization fears are exaggerated compared to the risks posed by ideological stagnation in Core.
Q: Was the EDA mechanism unethical?
A: No—it was a temporary fix for low hash power. It has since been replaced with a more stable algorithm following community consensus.
Q: Can hard forks damage blockchain integrity?
A: Not inherently. Hard forks are necessary for progress. Market forces determine which chains survive based on utility and adoption.
Q: Does BCH have smart contract capabilities?
A: While not native like Ethereum, BCH can support smart contracts via sidechains like RSK or through protocol upgrades if demand grows.
Q: Is Liu’s shift from BU to BCH inconsistent?
A: No—he emphasizes logic over loyalty. His support shifts based on which project best aligns with economic soundness and user needs.
Core Keywords
Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), hard fork, scalability, blockchain governance, Proof-of-Work (PoW), digital currency