Why are you reacting so emotionally? You have held bitcoin for a long time, and so you would have equal coins on both the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash chains. If Bitcoin evolves as peer-to-peer digital cash, with low fees and reliable confirmation, you win; if Bitcoin evolves as digital gold, with high fees and transaction friction, you win too.
I believe in the original vision for Bitcoin as described in the white paper: as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. I am working to help shape bitcoin to that vision and will continue to do so.
Could I be wrong? Sure. Maybe it actually is good to have $20 fees (soon to be $50) and a network that can only process 3 transactions per seconds (one thousand times less than Visa).
And that is why I hold both BTC and BCH.
i react emotionally because YOU play games with my live savings. why the fuck aren´t you creating just another altcoin to realize your great vision? why tamper with bitcoin? if you are not happy with it, leave it. well, you sort of did, but you try to steal as much juice of it as possible, trying to hurt bitcoin as much as possible.
now you expecting me to hug you for it? your game is called hijacking and it is evil.
From my perspective, it is Blockstream/Core that are tampering with Bitcoin, by refusing to allow a much-needed capacity increase to reduce fees and allow for continued growth, and then by fundamentally changing the structure of the BTC coin by adding
segwit.
Bitcoin Cash represents the original vision for Bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash. I will continue work to realize this vision, and help resist the hijack attempt by Blockstream and Core.
Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.
There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.
You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.