It is not me disagreeing with your opinion
Because when I disagree, I just state that right away (and you know that),
but in this very case you were evidently assuming that people could somehow effortlessly move their funds between the two coins or otherwise use them interchangeably ("you've got a clone with the capacity to handle the extra transactions") and choose the best coin to transact with as they see appropriate (as if the coins still remained essentially the one and same, just before the split). This is where you got confused. What extra transactions are you talking about? Obviously, this is impossible since after the split these are two entirely different coins. Your claim that Bitcoin Cash (allegedly) has some right or legitimacy to be called Bitcoin is completely irrelevant and inconsequential to the point (as you should understand). Other than that, I could just ask you why you don't humbly accept that you got confused? It is not so much about you being wrong or confused, or whatever as about you trying to stick to some clearly erroneous view or trying to come unscrewed by any means (that's what makes it so fun to comment on)
Well let's back up a step then. Because I think you've incorrectly assumed something about what I believe. I do not think that people can effortlessly move between one chain and the other. At the split though, anyone who had BTC now have the same amount of BCH, so the user base is essentially pre-installed in BCH. If BTC seizes up and becomes unstable or unusable, you don't have to move your bitcoins off that chain or convert them to BCH, you already have those coins (up to the split point, anything done with BTC after that isn't reflected on the BCH chain). BCH's threat to BTC is if the BTC blockchain can't handle future capacity and BCH reaches price parity with BTC, because then user aren't losing money by abandoning the unusable network (TO A POINT, this is not an absolute), you're incentivized to use the functioning network and because of price parity and the fact that your coins are waiting for you there (up to that split point), it lessens the switching costs as opposed to any other alt trying to supplant BTC as the dominant crypto
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)
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
