I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".
Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?
It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.
Why on earth BCC
hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN
Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....
Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.
It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.
It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.
It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too.