Key Differences Between BTC and BCH: A Must-Read Guide for Crypto Assets Investors in 2025

#BTC# #BCH# #投資# In the world of Crypto Assets, the comparison of Bitcoin Forked Coins has always been a hot topic. The main differences between BTC and BCH are particularly important for investors to understand the market. The technical differences between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin not only affect transaction speed but also have significant differences in transaction fees, making the pros and cons of Crypto Assets Forked Coins crucial. From the divergences and developments within the Bitcoin ecosystem, one can glimpse the impact of their respective strategies on the market. This article will delve into and provide a clear comparative analysis of transaction speed and fees to help investors make informed decisions.

On August 1, 2017, the Bitcoin community experienced a divergence due to the block expansion proposal, leading to the birth of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). This fork stemmed from fundamental disagreements regarding the developmental direction of the Bitcoin ecosystem. One faction of the Bitcoin community supported enhancing transaction capacity through off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network, while the other faction advocated for directly increasing the block size for on-chain scaling. Ultimately, the camp favoring on-chain scaling created BCH through a hard fork, expanding the block size from 1MB for BTC to 8MB, and later further to 32MB. Although BCH maintains a high degree of similarity to BTC in terms of technical architecture, including a total supply cap of 21 million coins, there are fundamental differences in design philosophy. BTC prioritizes decentralization and security, while BCH emphasizes practicality and transaction efficiency, a divergence that shapes the key differences between BTC and BCH.

From a market performance perspective, BTC still occupies an absolute dominant position. As of December 1, 2025, the price of BTC is $86,270.93, with a total market value of $1.72 trillion, accounting for 58.68% of the global Crypto Assets market. In comparison, the price of BCH is $524.57, with a total market value of only $10.47 billion, and a market share of just 0.36%. This stark contrast reflects the broad recognition of BTC as a digital gold among investors.

The technical differences between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin are mainly reflected in transaction processing capacity. Due to the smaller blocks of BTC, Bitcoin's transaction speed is slower and transaction costs are higher. The average block generation time for BTC is 10 minutes, processing a maximum of 7 transactions per second, while BCH, having larger blocks, can process hundreds of transactions per second, resulting in a lower average transaction cost. In practical applications, when the BTC network is congested, transaction fees can soar to dozens of dollars, while the transaction fees for BCH under the same conditions usually do not exceed 1 dollar.

This advantage makes BCH more suitable for everyday payment scenarios. If BTC is viewed as digital gold for long-term value storage, then BCH is closer to a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. BCH supporters believe that this design aligns more closely with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision proposed in the Bitcoin whitepaper. However, the BTC community believes that through second-layer solutions like the Lightning Network, BTC can also achieve fast, low-cost transactions while maintaining higher security and decentralization.

The divergence and development in the Bitcoin ecosystem lie in how to address the scalability dilemma of blockchain. BTC has chosen a relatively conservative route, maintaining the block size at 1MB and investing in the development of off-chain solutions. The Lightning Network, as the main scaling solution for BTC, allows users to transact without involving the main chain, significantly enhancing transaction efficiency, and has been adopted in multiple countries and regions. Additionally, smart contract platforms like Stacks also provide scaling capabilities on top of BTC, further enriching the ecological applications.

In contrast, BCH adopted a direct approach of increasing the block size. Supporters argue that with technological advancements and improvements in hardware performance, expanding the block size is the most direct and efficient solution. The 32MB block size of BCH allows it to achieve high throughput without the need for complex second-layer solutions. However, this approach has also sparked controversy: some developers are concerned that overly large blocks will increase the cost of running full nodes, potentially leading to a rise in the risk of network centralization.

The advantages and disadvantages of the two expansion strategies vary. The comparison of transaction speed and fees between BTC and BCH shows that BCH offers lower usage costs in the current environment, while BTC gains wider recognition through a mature ecosystem and official support. BTC has been recognized for tax and consumption purposes in certain regions of Japan and the United States, whereas the application scenarios for BCH are relatively limited.

For investors, the choice between BTC and BCH reflects different investment logics. BTC, due to its status as digital gold, large market capitalization, and liquidity, has become the preferred choice for institutional investors and long-term holders. In October 2025, the price of BTC broke through 126,000 USD, setting a historical high, and it has consistently been the most discussed in the crypto assets market. The stability of BTC stems from its strong network effects, numerous developers, and wide range of application scenarios.

Although BCH is ahead in technical efficiency, it faces the challenge of insufficient market attention. As of the current point in time, BCH ranks 11th in the global crypto assets rankings, far below mainstream coins like BTC and Ethereum. However, BCH's low price and relatively bottom position provide opportunities for investors seeking potential upward space. The number of BCH holding addresses is close to that of BTC, reflecting that its community foundation remains solid. Those investors who are optimistic about the comparative potential of crypto assets forked coins may be attracted by BCH's technical advantages.

In terms of risk assessment, BTC is classified as a low-risk asset, while BCH is considered medium risk. The risks associated with BTC mainly stem from macro policy changes, whereas BCH faces challenges such as intensified market competition and limited ecological applications. Investors should conduct transactions through legitimate and regulated exchanges and allocate their asset ratios reasonably based on their own risk tolerance.

This article aims to delve into the key differences between BTC and BCH, providing a must-read guide for cryptocurrency investors in 2025. The article first introduces the background of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin Cash fork, along with the technical differences in block size and transaction speed, analyzing how BCH challenges BTC's market position. Subsequently, it explores the different solutions for blockchain scalability between the two. Finally, the article compares the stability of BTC with the innovative potential of BCH, providing a reference for investors' choices. This guide is suitable for cryptocurrency investors and tech enthusiasts.