I try to stop myself, but every once in a while, they pull me in...

Just another day on Twitter, another tweet from the powers that be at Bitcoin, I mean, Bitcoin Cash.

Usually, I resist the temptation to dive into these futile arguments, but every once in a while, I just can't resist. This one started a big debate (every tweet from Bitcoin Cash does) about fees and how BCH is the more useful currency since its fees are lower.

The example chosen to illustrate the difference showed an unusually high fee for BTC compared to a zero-fee for BCH. Disregarding little details like the fact that BitPay was a part of the BTC fee and that most BTC fees are also in the pennies, the tweet is intended to convince followers that BCH is the more "useful" of the two currencies. If we measure in terms of how much a given currency is used, BTC experiences far greater utility on a daily basis around the world. It also has the highest hashing power, biggest development community, recognition and trust, among other positives.

In terms of Bitcoin's solution to scaling - SegWit and eventually Lightning - BCH proponents argue that bigger block sizes are the way to go to remain on-chain. It's true, bigger block size does enable transactions to remain on-chain further into the future with higher capacity, but SegWit is a functional and successful solution to scaling as well, albeit in a different way that some might argue is not trustless, especially when it comes to the Lightning network implementation. Having said that, Bitcoin Cash does not have anywhere near the same degree of decentralization as it is predominantly mined by a concentrated handful of miners. There are pros and cons.

There are interesting arguments on both sides. I'm personally not a maximalist of either and prefer to hold / use both, depending on the situation. This only seems to anger certain BCH supporters more, as it appears to be dismissive. It implies that one could use any other altcoin like Dogecoin for the same purpose and thus negates any unique value assigned to BCH. But it is true, you really could use any of a number of altcoins to serve the same functions as Bitcoin Cash does if you really didn't want to use Bitcoin. This isn't intended to be dismissive, but I can see why it might be interpreted as such.

This is not a one-coin-wins-all scenario. As the markets and technology grow, a large number of different currencies can grow to serve needs for many different situations. The more that these currencies' developers compete with each other to innovate and improve, the better it is for all of us.

I just have to try to resist getting into another tweetstorm - so tempting. Wish me luck.

source:
https://twitter.com/