Bcashers called out SegWit as a design flaw for various reasons. A good start is questioning ourselves why we didn't listen. If less people would have fallen for the Core propaganda we could have much nicer things today. InFinITe blocks are obviously bad for decentralisation, but absolute ImUtAbIlITy long before the protocol has been finished is a community failure and a misunderstanding of consensus game theory. Think about privacy, or quantum upgrades that all depend on hard forks. They happened on other chains, while maximalism claims superiority. Risk reward dramatically shifted from BTC to XMR and BCH.

Replies (1)

To add to that, what many people still don't know. Bcash fork didn't happen over blocksize, which could have happened at any further stage as community consensus becomes clearer. It happened over SegWit and the neccesity to preserve a state of Bitcoin without it. It came with 8M blocks at that time as the fork was driven by big blockers. From.a legitimacy perspective it was a failure to combine the two things instead of giving more time for a blocksize consensus e.g. conservative dynamic blocksizes as BCH has today.