It's not factually correct for anyone to claim that BCH is Bitcoin, since they have neither the accumulated proof of work, nor the economic majority to backup that claim.
so australia should not use "dollar" because america has more population
the solution is simple
"bitcoin" is for conversational purposes the same conversation nations have about "dollar"
in conversations with people that ask for a dollar. .. ask 'is that US or AU you want'
in conversations with people that ask for a bitcoin. .. ask 'is that core or cash you want'
as long as australia dont charge the US rate... as long as america dont charge the AU rate
as long as cash dont charge the core rate... as long as core dont charge the cash rate
then there is no conflict or fraud.. its just opening the mind to the broader conversation and understanding of decentralisation
like i said..
australians will continue to say they have "99 dollars but the U.S aint one" no matter how much america want to cry they own the dollar
americans will continue to say they have "99 dollars but the A.U aint one" no matter how much australia want to cry they own the dollar
whats next..
india Vs pakistan fight over "rupee"
Mexico Vs Philippines fight over "peso"
.. based on what.. population
That's certainly a helpful analogy, which I don't disagree with (apart form one bit I'll come to shortly), but it's not quite an accurate representation of what is happening here. The issue isn't their usage of the "Bitcoin" name for their chain itself (at least for me, anyway. But I can't speak for everyone here).
The crux of it is the bitcoin.com website isn't making a clear enough distinction that their incompatible currency is something different to the one which some inexperienced buyers are expecting to obtain when they mistakenly buy the wrong one. A small part of the blame does fall on them for being careless, but a much larger proportion of the blame can be directly attributed to the way in which bitcoin.com are marketing their version of the "dollar", as if there is only one and it's supposedly theirs. It's flagrantly manipulative.
To use your analogy, if you had freshly arrived from another planet and knew nothing about human fiat currency, you went to a local currency exchanger and requested to buy dollars, but ended up being given Canadian dollars when you wanted New Zealand dollars because the exchanger you used had a financial interest in New Zealand dollars, you wouldn't be very happy about it. There needs to be some serious and noticeable effort on the part of bitcoin.com to disambiguate between the two distinct currencies for this issue to be resolved without further escalation.
As for the bit I disagree with:
in conversations with people that ask for a bitcoin. .. ask 'is that core or cash you want'
Doesn't that somewhat undermine your own previous argument:
do you want a central team core owning bitcoin.
You rightly point out that the Core team don't own Bitcoin, but then you yourself call one of the chains "Core" in an attempt to differentiate it from Bitcoin Cash. Calling it the "Core chain" is factually incorrect and you're making the same mistake bitcoin.com are making. Core don't own the BTC chain either.
A better example of what could be asked is for clarity would be:
in conversations with people that ask for a bitcoin. .. ask 'is that BTC or BCH you want?'
Not only is it more neutral, but also clearly indicates that no one owns either chain.
