As others have said the network is different
I don't really know whether it is true or not, but if I'm not mistaken, it was the exchanges' condition and requirement that the wannabe Bitcoin should solve the replay issue if its creators wanted it to be listed there. So I guess they should have made the network incompatible to avoid the possibility of replay attacks (since we see BCH tokens listed at most if not all major exchanges by now). But ultimately this is irrelevant since your assumption falls apart at another level. You essentially say that there is nothing that would prevent both merchants and consumers from accepting Bitcoin Cash if the regular Bitcoin is stuck or fails. Even if technically it were so (which it is not), I still couldn't agree with this view. If we are to face the facts, many exchanges (if not all again) suspended even genuine Bitcoin deposits and withdrawals for some time to avoid possible repercussions from the introduction of Bitcoin Cash (until the dust settled). In this way, I can't possibly see how all these people you mentioned could be willing to accept Bitcoin Cash. That would likely wreak total havoc in their accounting unless they are going to accept it as just another payment currency. But then it would be no different from accepting, say, Litecoin, or any other altcoin. Thus your assumption is untenable and not plausible conceptually, not just technically
First, thank you for the more cordial tone. Your posts are much more interesting to read when they're just presenting your ideas and not attacking
My tone didn't change, it is more like you stopped posting outright trash
Can you explain what you mean about relay attacks and exchanges? Not sure I'm following that part.
What is "technically" not possible about accepting BCH payments in addition or as opposed to BTC? I don't understand this logic. Let's say I'm a merchant. I accept BTC for goods/services. In order to do so, I need only to have a BTC address. If I wanted to take BCH, all I would need is a BCH address. How is there a technical barrier there? Accordingly, there is no barrier stopping merchants from taking any other alt as payment either on a technical level. So the second pin of my premise is that just like every other alt is failing to win over against Bitcoin, there's no reason to think they would win over against BCH either. If BTC goes down, something is likely to become the dominant replacement, and if the BTC demise is attributable directly to capacity issues, it makes more sense to me that the closest alt to BTC and solves for its weakness takes its place. I believe that would more likely be BCH at this point than anything else.
Obviously, you meant replay (not relay) attacks
If you don't know what are these, in short, they allow making a transaction on the first blockchain and doubling it on the second blockchain. This is the thing which Coinbase encountered after the Ethereum split. So someone sent coins on the Ethereum Classic chain, and the transaction got mirrored (replayed) on the other chain. To make this kind of attack vector impossible, the networks should be made different to specifically address this issue. This means, apart from other things, that while BCC and BCH addresses are technically the same, the merchants would still have to use different wallets for these coins (I refer to software, not wallets as addresses). In other words, you can't receive BCH tokens in whatever regular Bitcoin wallet you happen to use (unless you successfully run a replay attack and receive BCC coins via a BCH initiated transaction)
