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.
Extra transactions? Do you expect we've already reached peak BTC transactions? Because if not,
those are the extra transactions I'm talking about. The future transactions above and beyond the current rates as BTC continues to grow. My opinion is (and this has to be the part you're disagreeing with, otherwise you don't have a point here) if BTC becomes unusable because it can't handle future capacity, BCH is a more likely alternative than any other current altcoin. I don't think BCH has a legitimate claim to BTC's legacy, but there are people who do, and ultimately that's a consensus thing. You can disagree with it, but if everyone else thinks so, your opinion doesn't matter. That's what I'm acknowledging as a possibility, and adding the opinion that BCH has more of a chance to claim that mantle than any other alt because of all the other reasons I listed above.
Do you see how pedantic arguing about confusion is? Because I could belabor the point about how confused you must be to not understand what an opinion is or how you're advocating your own opinion if I was equally as obsessed with sticking you with a label rather than having a conversation. You'd be a whole lot more interesting to discuss this with if you weren't so caught up in your own ego, but your superiority complex makes conversing with you a major chore sometimes. I am interested in having a more productive conversation that discusses ideas rather than getting caught up in strutting around on the boards in your own self-righteousness, if you've any interest in that. Bceause I can be convinced my
opinion about BCH is wrong with a compelling, reasoned argument, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that basing your entire post in the premise that I'm confused or your disagreement isn't a disagreement is not compelling reading.
