Yeah, this is where it gets obvious. If something is truly easy and works, you don’t need to over-explain it or defend it with layers of complexity. People just use it. BCH is simple: send, receive, done. No channels, no liquidity management, no extra steps just to make basic payments work. So when people react by calling names or trying to shut down the conversation, it usually says more about their discomfort with that simplicity than about BCH itself. At the end of the day, users don’t pick ideology. They pick what actually works with the least friction.

Replies (1)

Exactly, simple and easy to use wins every time. If a concept or solution is too difficult to implement it means it’s not a good idea. BTC fails that test every single time. They know L1 BTC doesn’t scale on it own but instead of owning that fact they hide behind the SOV narrative that not even in the whitepaper and bury their heads in the sand. They can’t simple wish this problem away. They are very ignorant of human nature. Nobody is going to voluntarily pay high fees when they don’t need to. That is a simple fact. So there goes there security budget when people flee BTC. Plus lighting takes away revenue that would have went to miners instead transactions are being settled off-chain.. BTC has no answers on how to scale to meet global demand without some custodian. How is this any different than what we have now with fiat banking?