Thanks for the post! I think BCH is trying to solve escalability problems but the wrong way. Please let me use a very silly example. Let us imagine that you will go shopping and you need to bring home 500kg food - this should be enough for your entire family (World). Today in BTC you cannot process (bring all food home) neither do BCH, the difference is that BTC can offer only 1kg bag and now BCH hás the brilhant idea to offer 8kg bag - however this will not solve it - one way to keep BTC low transaction and fast enough is trying to solve this via Lightning net work - move the transactions off-chain, basically buying a Truck ;-) in that sense the lots of transaction would be consolidated and then processed on chain. Additionally BCH was supported by some miners because at some stage it was more profitable to them. all i n all I personally don’t trust BCH enough to invest on it, however, they might do other moves to attract more investors, therefore, understand In case BCH is now in somebody’s portfolio.
Thanks for the comment and overall yes I agree, I have heard that explanation along with the highway explanation with 8 lanes (BCH) vs 1 lane (BTC). Since they are listed on coinbase I have more trust in them than some other projects. I agree that this is a very short term solution as you don't have a scalability problem unless there is millions of users behind it but from my research I've seen that lightning network is still many months away. Like I said I am a fanboy of neither and love both and in the long run I think that they both have a purpose in the world.
I agree with you, that they are here to suit a purpose, just afraid having so many forks and at some point all of them will become useless....thanks for your considerations, will be following your posts.
Thank you I appreciate it, and will definitely do the same. I agree at some point they will be worthless but BCH had first mover advantage (not the first but most popular, if you don't include LTC)