You again make a few very loose assumptions
Okay, you have your coins doubled (regular Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash), so if the old network gets congested, you explicitly assume that you could switch to using Bitcoin Cash and transact with it. Basically, you openly say that yourself. What you don't say but still implicitly assume (and this is where your implicit assumption goes awry on the whole) is that everyone is in the same boat with you, i.e. they are ready to accept Bitcoin Cash transfers instead of regular bitcoins. Obviously, this is a false assumption in general, and then we are back to what I've been saying before, namely, that you didn't check if your "theory" would actually work in practice. Besides that, I don't think that Bitcoin Cash is more viable alternative than other altcoins since, as I just said, you can't expect people to still hold these pseudo bitcoins (for the sake of solving their future transaction issues with the regular one)
As I also told you, I don't particularly care if someone is wrong or confused, so it is more about your ego not going to accept being confused here. I could even say that it is it exactly which is playing a dirty trick on you
Okay, you have your coins doubled (regular Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash), so if the old network gets congested, you explicitly assume that you could switch to using Bitcoin Cash and transact with it. Basically, you openly say that yourself. What you don't say but still implicitly assume (and this is where your implicit assumption goes awry on the whole) is that everyone is in the same boat with you, i.e. they are ready to accept Bitcoin Cash transfers instead of regular bitcoins. Obviously, this is a false assumption in general, and then we are back to what I've been saying before, namely, that you didn't check if your "theory" would actually work in practice. Besides that, I don't think that Bitcoin Cash is more viable alternative than other altcoins since, as I just said, you can't expect people to still hold these pseudo bitcoins (for the sake of solving their future transaction issues with the regular one)
if you weren't so caught up in your own ego, but your superiority complex makes conversing with you a major chore sometimes
As I also told you, I don't particularly care if someone is wrong or confused, so it is more about your ego not going to accept being confused here. I could even say that it is it exactly which is playing a dirty trick on you
Since the network is identical at the split, you have the burden of proof I suppose of arguing against the notion that there isn't already a system in place that can pick up where it left off at the split point. So yes, while I am assuming that merchants or people who were accepting bitcoin could just as easily accept BCH, since the network is a clone, the addresses are a clone, the private keys are a clone, etc., it seems logical to me that people abandoning the unusable network would find the least friction in taking up the BCH network. If you are a merchant or consumer using Bitcoin, what's preventing you from switching to BCH? Especially if you've already got coins there and especially if the network is gaining favor with the masses amidst a general increase in unusability of the BTC network. That's not to say any transition would be seamless or pick up where BTC left off months after the split, only that it offers the least friction to cross over. Also, any switch wouldn't happen instantaneously. Bitcoin wouldn't suddenly be "unusable" in one instant where it was perfectly usable the instant before. It would be a long, slow march towards unusability, just like last time, and as people become increasingly more frustrated with delays and high fees and the developer's overall inability or unwillingness to address the issue, there will already be a nearly identical system that can address the capacity problem, and as bitcoin loses favor over time, BCH will increase in value as it becomes more viable
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.
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.
