I am not talking about emergency difficulty at all, I did not mention it once, so your whole reply is worthless bro, you're not very smart if you reply rebutting points I did not even make ... are you one of those zealot types? Did you read I hold equal amounts of both?
If you're going to bring up the "original vision", then be prepared to talk about the EDA, because it was a clear example of how BCH contradicted the "original vision". No doubt, it's easier to ignore any contradictions and just repeat the false premise of BCH being "closer to the original vision", but it's not intellectually honest. No, I'm not a "zealot", but I'm also not a fan of BCH.
EDA is not relevant to anything i said, you're not making sense at all, you're an argumentative zealot who drank the blockstream AXA koolaid.
I hold both coins in equal numbers and will be happy either way, hopefully both achieve adoption, I just recognise on chain scaling with increased block size was part of the original vision, as was second layer solutions, and bch only exists because blockstream AXA needs to make revenue from LN, so they obstructed one scaling option to benefit their own interests. Everything else is a smokescreen, do both , bch will end up with second layer scaling like LN too, just with big blocks now when we need increased capacity asap.