I'm not so sure. There are a lot of people who wanted bitcoin to serve the cash use-case who aren't convinced core will keep bitcoin low-fee and workable as anything other than a settlement layer. Bitcoin cash is closer to the original vision.

Signs I'm watching:

* Merchant adoption

* bitcoin-abc doesn't have any commits in the last 21 days.

* Mining has not diversified (yet) so this doesn't appear to have gathered tons of support and it is really centralized. https://cash.coin.dance/blocks

Those people are not paying attention, or are paying attention to the wrong people.

Bitcoin cash is not closet o the "original vision"... that's a Roger Ver claim which is asinine beyond belief.

SegWit literally fixes an issue that Satoshi identified in the white paper... and Lightening Network is literally a nice rebranding and enhancement of the payment channels that Satoshi came up with.

Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- in fact Jihan said in a blog that the segwit fees were "unfair" because they are too low. Who is it you think who wants high fees again?

You've been listening to the people who want to take over bitcoin, not the engineers.

I've been listening to both, and I question the motives of both.

Members of core have contradicted themselves so often when asked why the block size can't be raised that there must be another agenda.

When they claimed a one-line arbitrary constant was impossible to change and then gave conflicting reasons why, they lost credibility. I've only seen this waxy-flexibility of logic when someone can't reveal the real reason behind what they want, or they are purely irrational.

Core have not been good stewards. Even in the unlikely event they were "correct," the mismanagement of the community, censorship, inability to communicate or build consensus has been atrocious.

In terms of original vision, Satoshi pretty clearly described layer 1 scaling.

source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810

--------

It would be nice to keep the blk.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.

Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.

I assumed as much myself, but after a few weeks of BCH sustaining a non-trivial trading value, it's hard to keep faith in that hypothesis.

I mean, the main proponents of BCH did not mine it themselves to keep the difficulty down, it does not seem to have reached hashrate-price-difficulty equilibrium yet.

The price won't go to 0, just like ETC didn't go to 0. I was only saying that 0.2 BCH/BTC levels were unsustainable

I wouldn't be surprised if people are just switching back and forth between BCH and real cash to inflate the transaction numbers. Hypothetically, this would be done to further the political goals of those who want to increase the blocksize.

Could be. Could also be the beginning of a major movement from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash, which is something to be worried about.

As a trader you should know not to certain, you're only trying to make educated guesses.

You still can't redeem and cash your Bitcoin Cash from Coinbase, correct? If Bitcoin Cash crashes before they implement their fix, I'd fully expect them to be liable for customers' losses.

Note that when they released Ethereum Classic from customers' Ethereum balances, it was well after ETC initial pump, and no, they didn't reimburse those customers for the price difference.

From what I understand, no customers challenged that in court, either. Of course their initial position will be to not trash their business.