🔥While you can't prove Roger Ver is simply a greedy person I can prove BCH >BTC

[Alex Khvatov]

BCH is more technologically sound than BTC, there is no point in denying this. But people hold BTC because of its ability to rise and bring profits. How good the technology is often matters less to investors than how widely it is adopted...

[PointHope]

If there was any truthfulness and honesty to BCH then where are mine?

I owned numerous BTC prior to the fork. But for some reason no one issued me my BCH.
Apparently Roger Ver kept them and is scamming with them...Fuck Roger Ver.

If you don't control your private keys you don't own Bitcoin. Your exchange have your BCH

I have my BTC safely tucked away on a hardwallet, far from the crooked exchanges who support BCH scammer coin.
 
My main objection to BCH is the fundamental dishonestly of the coin.

BCH scam-trash will never approach the fundamental truth and honest security of BTC.

Screw greedy boys like Roger Ver. He could be making money honestly yet choses not to, what a prick!

[jseverson]

Nobody owns the Bitcoin name, is called decentralization and Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin, not an altcoin so it makes sense use the Bitcoin name.

Uhh, altcoins are called altcoins because they're alternatives over the granddaddy cryptocurrency, which is Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash could use the name, yes, but like every other Bitcoin fork out there, it is, by definition, an altcoin simply because it's not the original Bitcoin.

I acknowledge that Bitcoin is open source, and everyone could make a fork that takes a different scalability approach, but claiming to be the original is nothing but fraud.

[tegarp90]

i think yes he is, he sometimes manipulate the bitcoin price and "son" of bitcoin (altcoin bitcoin HF) because i think he owned more than 20% circulated bitcoin

[Kakmakr]

Nobody owns the Bitcoin name, is called decentralization and Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin, not an altcoin so it makes sense use the Bitcoin name.

Uhh, altcoins are called altcoins because they're alternatives over the granddaddy cryptocurrency, which is Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash could use the name, yes, but like every other Bitcoin fork out there, it is, by definition, an altcoin simply because it's not the original Bitcoin.

I acknowledge that Bitcoin is open source, and everyone could make a fork that takes a different scalability approach, but claiming to be the original is nothing but fraud.

The only difference is, Bitcoin Cash got instant adoption and distribution from the fork. This is years of hard work that was done by Bitcoin <BTC> supporters. Free marketting with a push of a few buttons to fork the coin and put millions of coins in BTC supporters pockets.

The BTC supporters did not complain, because it was free money.

Bitcoin Cash will always be seen as the Leech, bloodsucking parasite that it is. Sucking the life blood out of it's host. <BTC>

[desi92]

Sorry sir, what you try to say here ? your post tittle sound confusing, and i allready read that bitcoin whitepaper long time ago when im still in highschool

I dont even try to read the whitepaper but i have felt that bitcoin is the best one.
However i also confuse what the op try to say.

Try to do a 15$ transaction with BTC, then try to do a 15$ transaction with BCH. After this experiment you will no longer feel Bitcoin is the best one but a doomed non-currency.

Correct. It is very true  but if you talk about the fee and the slow transaction.
There is other thing that need to talk here to prove bch is better than btc. If just one example then i think it is not strong proof.

[amishmanish]

BCH is more technologically sound than BTC, there is no point in denying this. But people hold BTC because of its ability to rise and bring profits. How good the technology is often matters less to investors than how widely it is adopted...

Where do all you brainwashed zombies come from??

You are an idiot if you believe that Bitcoin cash is more technologicaloy sound. Its a bloody copy with an increased blocksize. Increasing blocksize is no technological marvel. Every other alt-coin does that.
You really think that scaling can be as simple as increasing blocksize? Who runs the nodes then to prevent miners from forming their own consensus.
A full node with low blocksize can be run by anybody while only data-center scale operations can run mining alongwith full nodes if yoh increase blocksize indefinitely.
That creates a clear conflict of interest because then only miners control the rules and consensus. What part of this argument is so difficult to understand?!