bitcoin cash is the upgrade version of bitcoin. bitcoin could handle approximately three transactions per second with its 1MB of data per block and bitboin cash 8mb per block. and i think bitcoin will increase rapidly and bitcoin cash will increase soon bitcoin is til the best best. .. and this time bitcoin will increase more than we think.
I believe the 1MB blocks could handle 7 transactions per second (that's the most common number I've seen cited). In any event, that's irrelevant since SegWit is supposed to increase space by 60% for transactions in the blocks, and then the 2x portion of SegWit is supposed to increase the blocks to 2MB in November. Back of the envelope math puts the transaction capacity then at 22 transactions per second.
When trying to talk about the merits of BCH, that's the number you need to be competing against. Three transactions per second is either intentionally understated or ignorant
Such comparisons are meaningless as such
They would make sense if and only if the block capacity is utilized in full. And I'm afraid we will never live up to that, at least, not in respect to Bitcoin Cash. How many blocks have been mined since it forked off, a dozen or two? How many transactions are there? I understand that it is too early to tell by any metric but what makes anyone think that anything is going to change at all in the future? Why would people use this shitcoin when they can safely use, say, Litecoin, which is a lot faster and cheaper (in respect to fees)
The capacity is immensely important. I'm not a fan at all of BCH, but to the extent the differences have merit, they ought to be considered fairly. Extra capacity is the whole point. If BTC reaches capacity again and the network slows down and fees skyrocket, all of a sudden BCH looks much more attractive. I don't see the point in BCH unless SegWit2x proves to be unable to cope with future transaction load and the developers again refuse to make changes. At that point, you've got a clone with the capacity to handle the extra transactions, and I'm sure if push comes to shove, they'd adopt SegWit on top of it creating even more capacity. As for why anyone would use that over Litecoin is the same question as to why anyone uses Bitcoin over Litecoin if the transactions are so much faster and cheaper over there. BCH has one thing that differentiates itself, and that's a very recent shared identity and an outside shot of claiming itself the legitimate Bitcoin chain with the masses. (I don't buy it, but if everyone else eventually does... well, we're all at the mercy of the consensus in that regard.)
You are always massively confusing things
In this case specifically, you implicitly assume that Bitcoin Cash and the regular Bitcoin still remain somehow connected or affiliated but after the split this is no longer the case. Bitcoin Cash is already just another coin (like many others out there), and converting from regular Bitcoin to this Bitcoin would be equal to selling and buying coins just like with any other two coins. So why would people want to use this China coin (when there is a congestion in the regular Bitcoin network) when they can buy Litecoin instead, which would be safer, cheaper, and faster? Anyway, Litecoin has virtually unlimited capacity, so why would Bitcoin Cash look more attractive and to whom exactly (and still more so if we are to compare and consider things "fairly")?
What is it that you think was confused,
exactly? Because every time someone has an opinion differing from you, you label that as the other person misunderstanding or being confused. It's rather embarrassing for you that you think every instance of a different opinion is the other person being confused. Because apparently you think I think that BTC and BCH are still connected or affiliated, even though I don't.
BTC and BCH are two separate coins, but it is not like any other alt because BCH is essentially a clone of BTC with the only difference being block size (i.e. capacity). Up to a few days ago, they had the exact same history. That is, first and foremost, something no other coin gets to say. BCH is the only coin with the chance of claiming legitimacy of the "Bitcoin" legacy. So BCH is quite different from litecoin because BCH and BTC share a common history as of several days ago, and BCH's entire point is to SUPPLANT bitcoin, not operate as a compliment to it like litecoin has always maintained was its purpose. If BCH didn't want to SUPPLANT bitcoin, there would be no point in branching off. BCH did so in the belief that the only way to save bitcoin was to correct the biggest flaw in allowing the network to scale appropriately, capacity. The only way BCH maintains value now is if they ultimately prove to be right about the capacity issue. If BTC's blockchain once again becomes congested and unusable, BCH's is the closest ecosystem to bitcoin, not litecoin. Additionally, if litecoin is so superior in speed and cost and capacity, it would already be beating BTC, and it sure as heck would have replaced BTC during the last several-month-long period of congestion and skyrocketing fees. The fact that it's not and it didn't means Bitcoin has something that the market desires beyond what litecoin offers, (call it legacy, name recognition or some unquantifiable attribute) and at a point where BTC no longer can meet market need (due to capacity restraints), the most likely chain of events is for the market to latch on to the closest thing that matches Bitcoin, and right now that's BCH on account to there only being one difference between the two systems.
You can disagree with that, and I fully expect you will, but don't be such a pompous jackhole that you think because I have a different opinion than you it's because I'm confused. That level of arrogance is incongruent with having any type of worthwhile discussion.
