FOUR REASONS WHY BITCOINCASH (BCH or "BCash") CANNOT SURVIVE IN THE BITCOIN CRYPTOCURRENCY ECONOMY

This article addresses the confusion and long-term prospects regarding the BCash cryptocurrency, which is a fork (clone) of the original Bitcoin (BTC) and which is being disingenuously promoted by its founders as a "better" version of BTC. BCH is not a community-owned project but is a privately managed project started in 2017 by a small group of investors comprising Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, Barry Silbert, and associates. See links at the bottom of this post for further background information.

REASON #1

The entire crypto economy is DENOMINATED in BTC, not BCH. This fact alone ensures that BTC remains the dominant coin and safest investment, just like the US dollar ($) is the dominant fiat currency on earth even though it is essentially worth only 2% of its face value (due to fractional reserve lending and other monetary policy abuses). If you want to buy oil, you have to use USD, and USD is accepted everywhere. That's why the dollar is king: it's not because the Federal Reserve has a flawless product, but because it has the status of global reserve currency, like BTC does in the crypto-economy.

So even if BTC never solves its high transaction fee problem, the mere fact that all trading in crypto assets is denominated in BTC and accomplishable with BTC makes it king. Therefore, BCH doesnt challenge BTC for dominance in any way unless and until the majority of exchanges start denominating their assets in BCH and enabling trading of all assets directly through BCH.

REASON #2

BCH advantage in lower transaction fees doesn't matter much given its inherent price volatility (due to over-centralization).

BCash has lower fees than BTC for now, but those fees do rise quickly as coin value and transaction volume increases. Today, BCH transaction fee as a percentage of coin value is roughly 0.05%, whereas BTC is running at about 1.6% (very rough estimates; data obtained from bitinfocharts.com).

BCH stakes its claim to superiority over BTC on one grounds: lower transaction fees due to larger block size. But the transaction fees of BCH are determined by the same factors as those of BTC. And we can see that the average transaction fee on the BCH blockchain is already growing, having gone up 3x since November 1, peaking at 4x ($0.43) during the "great BCH pump and dump of Q4 2017." The marginal benefits of using BCH over BTC are already falling, and will continue this decline exponentially as transaction volume on the BCH blockchain increases, until the difference in transaction fees between the two coins vanishes altogether. Thus BCash's solution to the transaction fee problem is just a band-aid, and one that is doomed to shake loose.

Combine that fact with the knowledge that BCH will suffer from coordinated pump and dump action solely for the benefit of its owners (that's right OWNERS), this coin is not so great as a currency. Investing in BCH to use as currency is risky because the price is as likely to crash as it is to pump, and the small amount of money you save in transaction fees will be lost when you find yourself wanting to make a transaction during a dumping cycle. You might pay a small fee on your transaction, but your coin will be worth 50% less one day versus another day.

BTC value also fluctuates but not by such huge percentages, so as a store of value it is more likely to have strong buying power any given day of the month.

REASON #3

BTC daily volume still exceeds BCH daily volume despite higher fees. After half a year of life, BCH has not stolen the top spot in daily volume, meaning that most people using BTC dont care all that much about the fee issue, at least not enough to trust their savings to BCH.

BCash is pumping again right now but their volume is only 3.27 million BCH/day compared to BTC which is moving gently sideways yet has a volume of 5.01 million BTC/day (data obtained from coinmarketcap.com). If you assume that a large portion of BCH volume is nothing more than Roger Ver & Tha Gang exchanging coins among themselves to artificially inflate the volume metric (which is more than a safe assumption, but is rather like a doctrinal principle), then BTC on an average day has more economic activity on its blockchain than BCH on its best day.

According to Roger Ver's own logic, the greater network activity on BTC makes it the better investment.

REASON #4

BCH is the LEAST SUSTAINABLE COIN in cryptospace, precisely BECAUSE OF its similarity to BTC. BCash, in terms of both its branding and its use of the same hashing algorithms for mining and address-generation, is so similar to BTC that it falls under the definition of COUNTERFEIT. Therefore, the laws of economics demand that BCH be eliminated from the marketplace.

By trying to make BCH "a better bitcoin," BCH has shot itself in the foot. Because these coins involve the same code, the same address generation and mining hash algorithms, and the same brand, they cannot coexist: their coexistence introduces inefficiencies into the whole crypto economy, creating a confusion, uncertainties and risks (particularly the risk of accidentally doing a cross-chain transaction). In summary, the existence of BCH introduces an inherent inefficiency in the crypto-economic system.

Therefore, market forces are naturally opposed to the very existence of BCH, and based on economic law I can confidently predict that BCH will die. It wont just lose, but it will utterly die, and it will die the death of an abandoned sh*%coin.

If you were a king minting gold coins for your citizens to use, and a bank decided that it would be cheaper to have a lightweight coin that was easier to transport but looked exactly like your minted coins in all other respects, and they started minting their own polished bronze versions of your gold coins, you wouldn't tolerate it, and your citizens wouldn't want it either. Its a threat to the economic stability of your empire. Likewise, the BTC-denominated crypto-economy cannot tolerate the existence of BCH.