I support any and every coin that aims to build Satoshi's version of peer-to-peer electronic cash. Right now, the coins that come closest are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash. Sadly all three have had to make some big concessions that make them look less like the original version.
I also find the split interesting. I'm most interested in how effectively public perception was manipulated with regards to the split and the reasons for it.
With regards to lightning network, it was pulled into the debate as a deflection from the real issue which was that a few high ranking core devs (after forming Blockstream, a company aiming to make money off of BTC's "scaling problems" ) reneged on their agreement to bump the blocksize to 2mb with the passing of segwit. Those devs realized they could hide behind lightning network and make it's supporters think big blockers were attacking them.
The truth is, very few people in the big block camps are against lightning network. I know many BCH devs that would welcome and even contribute to a lightning implementation on BCH, which for the record would work substantially better because on-chain fees wouldn't make it cost prohibitive to open/close channels or provide liquidity. The only beef with Lightning that big blockers really have is that they don't see it as an alternative to on-chain scaling. This whole BCH vs Lightning war is just a false flag.
What about Litecoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash? I don't see what benefits Bitcoin Cash has over Litecoin. It seems like the original idea for Litecoin was that it could be used more for day to day transactions, by reducing the block time. I question the need for Bitcoin Cash to begin with, when Litecoin was already available. I am curious of your thoughts on that.
I also saw you mentioned Dash. Is there a reason you didn't also include Z-Cash in your short list (I am genuinely curious).
I am aware of the r/bitcoin vs r/btc controversy and understand the r/bitcoin censorship concern. On the other hand, r/btc is not censored but they seem so anti Bitcoin Core / Lightning Network, it looks to me like they don't consider the other side at all.
From what I can tell, the Lightning Network could be a scaling solution. It is awesome to know that many BCH devs aren't opposed to a lightning implementation on BCH. I'd love to see these communities converge.
That's the problem, bcashers ignore technical reality.
Actual pro-bitcoin altcoin project like Zcash and Litecoin are ignored for the altcoins that fell into the bcash camp and memes.
Litecoin is a better "bitcoin" than bitcoin cash, and with its move towards Mimblewimble Extension Block's, will have additional privacy that does not exist in bcash. But accepting that would require more a technical understanding of mathematics and cryptoeconomics.
>the coins that come closest are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash.
How come the XRPLedger isn't on your radar? It was build before these other coins existed with the primary goal to be a better bitcoin so it can actually have the properties that p2p cash needs. Like low block time, low fees and high throughput. Its ofc not a fork because forking can not change the fundamental flaws that limits bitcoin. Unfortunately Satoshi was completely wrong on almost everything related to scaling the network.
"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling."
Here are a few examples
Satoshi's Guidance: Bitcoin should function as cash
Source: https://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf ( See the title )
Satoshi's Guidance: We shouldn't be limiting transaction capacity to accommodate low performance client hardware
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
Satoshi's Guidance: The blocksize limit should be removed to maximize network capacity. The limit was only meant to be temporary.
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg153...
EDIT: formatting