I am not sure if I should further open these kinds of cans of worms, but I am going down the path of thinking:

"Wait a second.  You are trying to suggest that bcash has "sound money" on its side?"

Seems a bit crazy if some bcashers, such as jbreher, is going to argue that bcash is more sound money - but I can't put anything past some of these BIG BLOCKERs in regard to their logical and factual inconsistencies. 

O.k... o.k. o.k.  I understand that my provocativeness is kind of inviting a jbreher response when, recently, he had been less "bad" then usual in terms of his nonsense trolling.

By the way, it might not be out of line for me to reiterate here that my objections to bcash does not really revolve around theoretical arguments that either BIG BLOCKs or emphasizing merchant adoption might not somehow lead to more liquidity and and perhaps even fewer layers of technical complexity, but instead I remain more frustrated by the disingenuiness of bcashers in regards to their failure and refusal to try to work within bitcoin - and creating pump and dump vehicles that are more destructive to the exploration of possible technical solutions while largely misleading regular people with their stupid-ass bullshit assertions that they are the real bitcoin.

Anywhoooo, another problema with attempting to assert that bcash is more sound money does seem to revolve around the centralized control of the various bcash forkenings.. so I have some difficulties with that angle of any kind of "superior sound money" claims that you, jbreher, seem to be suggesting to be in the camp of the bcashers.