It is possible to keep the SHA256 algorithm, the issue is the difficulty adjustment. Having the minority hash will be a issue in terms of 51% attacks and such no matter the DAA.
This is incorrect. Trying to deal with the difficulty adjusment algo is basically retardation when a single sha256 miner can disrupt the network easily.
The transaction volume has no effect since fees are so little compared to the block reward, need full 600MB blocks at 1 sat/byte to get close to the 6.25 BCH fixed reward.
BCH created a new DAA when it forked from Bitcoin called Emergency Difficulty Adjustment which was supposed to be able to adjust to big changes in hash quickly but it is exploited.
Now BCHN and ABC are offering their own improvement to change the difficulty. Both are grid-locking over which one gets implemented over the other one.
Being in BCH is being in eternal conflict, which is better than complete disinterest, it is at least a sign of people caring about it. Do you think a new chain split is possible?
Amaury is "his way or the highway" with tech proposals. BCH would only benefit from a split if it was minimal damage involved, most people stay on same chain or move to same chain.
It is because the current Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm is gamed by Miners so that they can mine more BCH for less work. Lower the difficulty, then speed mining, and lowering it agai
Yes, that's what is going on. Current DAA is oscillatory in nature and miner are taking advantage of that - mining bch when it's profitable, then switching back to btc.
Back around the BCH/BSV split the ABC developer worked on adding a alternative POW-Algo just in case of an attack, but now it seems unthinkable even though hash is lower as a percent.
Optimally the hashing algo should have been changed right after it became undeniable that sha256 miners favor Blockstream's retarded policies in 2017 q4.