Bitcoin Core has finally removed the low fee part from their website.
Having to pay $20 dollars per transaction is not a low fee. Even with Lighting people are paying $2 dollars a transaction, not including the cost to open and then close the channel. Bitcoin Cash has the low fees with them being 1/10 of a penny to send $1,000,000 anywhere on earth within seconds. BCH still has P2P transactions (Like the title in the white paper states) whereas Lighting transactions jump through 2 to 5 nodes with each taking a transaction fee. Now if they will just remove the p2P part. The link at the bottom shows the devs discussing the matter.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/2010
Update from CobraBitcoin: https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/955221417850818562
Cobra-Bitcoin
"I'm less hostile to Bitcoin Cash than I was a few months back. Truth is it's not that bad. You just send a payment, the person doesn't have to be always online like with LN, and you don't have to deal with issues like channel fraud, or opening/closing channels. Just wait for 6 confirmations, and you can be reasonably certain nothing will go wrong, and if it does, it'll be a 51% attack and public knowledge. But with LN, you have instant payments, but there are many subtle ways your channel can get messed with, and you need to always be vigilant. I'd rather be vigilant for those 6 confirmations than have to be on alert for fraud for however long I have my channel open.
It's unclear to me who would use LN. If anyone wants to buy something, it's much simpler with something like Bitcoin Cash. If you want to send really small micropayments, it's also much simpler with BCH because you don't incur fees on opening/closing channels like you would with LN. I think LN will take a very long time to work out all the UX issues, and to be developed and adopted in e-commerce. I wish people would stop hyping it so much and making it seem like it solves everything. Often these people are just hyping it for political purposes. When it comes to payments, the simplest tool will win.
The problem with Bitcoin Cash is that it's too centralized and easily changed. Solo developers like /u/deadalnix
have way too much power to change the system. This was proven with the whole drama around the DAA algorithm and how he strong-armed his own solution and didn't coordinate with the other teams on a better solution. He also rushed out a hard fork to be adopted in a few weeks. It's very dangerous for the integrity of a cryptocurrency to have one man able to change something as critical as the difficult adjustment in just a few weeks with barely any discussion.
Another problem with Bitcoin Cash is how it's marketed. Roger Ver presents "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" as two separate versions of Bitcoin, it's a confusing mess because he tries to use Bitcoin.com to cater to both, as if they both fall under some sort of "meta Bitcoin". There is only one Bitcoin, just stick with that and promote one thing, not two. You can't jerk off two dicks with one hand. If he hates "Bitcoin Core" so much, why does he help to promote it? It makes no sense and looks ridiculous. Probably something to do with making more money from both sides, dunno.
The mining on Bitcoin Cash is too centralized (same with Bitcoin), you guys can change the PoW and get much more decentralized distribution of mining and it'll be easier to claim to be "Satoshi's Bitcoin", because back when Satoshi was around, mining actually used to be quite decentralized. That and putting more emphasis on running full nodes would be good, ignore frauds like Craig who harp on about how irrelevant full nodes are. Full nodes are important in letting you know that the rules of the system are being obeyed, otherwise you're basically putting all trust in miners. This is even more important when you don't dominate your PoW algorithm, it's very easy for rogue Bitcoin miners to attack you (and likely financially profitable for them too)."
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.