...but seriously, why would I use BCH over LTC? Because I don't want a coin with an option to use segwit? I'm trying to get the selling point of using BCH over something that already is established.
Since windjc asked me this exact question last week, I'll quote my response to him:
"I view money as a ledger. Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value. The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on? Which is the best pen?
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1. At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth).
Switching to LTC would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink. Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger."
If the whole premise is toward the cash part, basically, fast, digital money, why does the length of the ledger have anything to do with anything. When I go to a store and buy something with cash, I don't care about the history or who owned it prior to me spending it. I just want something that the merchant will take and be on my way as quickly as possible. Yes, transactional history is a major selling point of the blockchain (to be able to verify ownership and prevent double spends) but I fail to see why there is more value in a blockchain that is 2 years older. If you want fast cash, you use an alt with fast block confirms and low fees. BCH was created to try to solve a problem that it doesn't actual solve... you're not magically going to scale with 8MB blocks, fees aren't as cheap as other alts, and blocktimes are still 10 minutes (an on average target that was hardly followed given prior diff adjustments).