@Rusher7

Consider this: use hash power itself instead of fiat as default wallet comparisons. Not "Your BCH is worth 7 USD" but "Your BCH is worth 200 Mh/s"

How A Digital Euro Affects BCH Simply put: BCH must become the "country-less" medium of value exchange. It would look like a currency without country or boundary. It would run on the Proof of Work standard of value, whether by hamster wheels driving tube computer hardware over thin copper wire, or fiber optic server farms. https://read.cash/@Rusher7/proof-of-work-theory-of-value-b090cec1 As described by Knuth, BCH has no fiat allies. It has no cryptocurrency allies either. Every cryptocurrency is competing to be -the- standard for value, as much as possible. That doesn't mean there are only enemies, but that BCH will provoke. https://knuth.flipstarter.cash Interference If state/fiat apparatuses or replacements begin to inflict injury on BCH through censorship or suppression (censorship of code repositories for example), then it is advisable the whole community prepare for a decentralized development approach, mostly by utilizing blockchain technology that's already available for hosting content. Possible Solutions One example of redundancy could be the posting of code, wallets and other dApps on decentralized P2P networks like LBRY. The key would be creating habits that mitigate the ability for fiat interested policy to damage BCH infrastructure. There is already promising replacements in the pipeline with SmartBCH, and it might be advisable to transition to hosting the development of the chain on the chain itself. Such a desperate situation isn't ideal, but mitigating measures should be taken. Some ways would be preparing the decentralized technology such that it can be easily distributed on a physical medium such as USB sticks, providing a thorough introduction and instructions. It would help, as well, if there could be decentralized mining pools, so a person just connecting the first time could act as their own faucet for a couple BCH to experiment with. Reflection None of these scenarios are pleasant to think about, and with prudence the situation won't be so dire.

Looks to me like the BCH is moving away from being an alt-coin by technical analysis. Every other crypto adjusts in price with BTC's price. The degree BCH follows BTC is decreasing.

The Importance Of Owning Vision (BCH) Most people rightly proclaim value in white papers, technical details and systems. All of these are valuable, but they are also able to be adapted to by rival currencies. BTC vs BCH Most in BCH don't perceive BTC as a threat to BCH value, since they believe that BTC will always be non-competitive in the currency space. Currently, that's true. The issue is with the perception of 'never'. I do not mean 'solutions' like the Lightning network, either. The issue is BTC's social capital. As the investment in BTC grows, there's a threat of business and retail investors influencing the development of the coin to revisit issues that kill its value. Discussions by BTC influencers about block size and making BTC a currency could threaten BCH. Feasibility of Change So just how feasible is BTC reviving this conversation? Isn't the media propaganda that BTC's high fees is a feature and not a bug? Didn't Blockstream take it over and plan to kill it? Everyone involved in cryptocurrency should know that competition causes adaptation. If BCH begins to consume BTC market capital, threatening to outclass BTC, the pressure from new investors to save their funds could push BTC into competing in the currency space. The key to competing in such conditions is selling vision. How To Sell Vision So in the crypto space, what does selling vision look like? It should not focus on the negative of other coins but the positives of itself. Reputation and wisdom is how you sell vision. One of the key focuses should be selling the development team of BCH and its consistent values, reputation and productive discourse on steering development to where it is going and is today. The appeal to public would be the consistent track record of putting scalability before redundancy. That it owns the initial vision of Bitcoin and carries it forward into the future. That there is more ideological and reputational consistency in the influencers of BCH's direction. This will be especially important while BCH does not yet have top market capital - and leading up to that. Emphasis It needs to be emphasized that making barriers to entry into development too low, having no consistent developer vision on the needs for scalability and having opaque or hidden paths to learning about BCH will obstruct the adoption of BCH. Vision means looking ten years ahead, even if adoption is a focus right now, vision is not disconnected from generating adoption itself. Solutions I think some positive developments would be transparent developer meetings on the standards of what is or is not acceptable values for BCH code, and onboarding processes with outlines of values as well would be positive. For example, an agreement to not reduce or stagnate block size (against certain criteria) or other issues agreed upon, would signal to the world "we are, were and we will be consistent". Final Thoughts There have been multiple positive developments recently on this front ( such as the website whybitcoincash.com ). I am not at all solemn about the future of BCH, instead I advise prudence about upcoming potential challenges, and preparing before they're a reality.

Proof of Work Theory of Value I will preface this by saying I am no expert in mathematical analysis and I can make correlations that to others seem absurd. However, I perceive a larger issue looming over all cryptocurrencies, an issue which BTC is poised with a better chance of surviving: civil conflict. It's a cliche to talk about apocalyptic scenarios. I'll forego commentary on various Reductio ad Apocalypse phenomenon taking place politically (which invariably you'll assert yours is true, 'mine' isn't, or vice versa). The issue is, if crypto infrastructure collapses, whether by political or other disruptive means - BCH and cryptocurrencies in general will not have any value, to anyone. Okay, so what? Good question. As the stakes grow higher politically for cryptocurrencies being suppressed, and those austere conditions force adaptations on cryptocurrencies to resist censorship (such as decentralizing exchanges and decentralized distributions of wallet software), the failure condition for crypto (and BCH with it) is the failure of developing/funding it as a project, at least to near completion. It also means an emphasis on immutable code/systems built into the protocol are bulwarks against future fragility. Regardless, if crypto is seen as too disruptive (imagine a global crackdown on all cryptocurrency GitHubs/similar) then BCH as it stands will fail. This is just conspiracy thinking, right? Well, it is an extension on the issue acknowledged by Knuth*, that BCH and all crypto is up against a confluence of fiat institutions that have shared interests. No dark room meetings are needed when your particular interests align. Such institutions have many avenues of attacking/defaming cryptocurrencies. Already some coins such as Monero have been banned from exchanges (recently talked about by Roger Ver below).** Problems and Perspectives In response, some persons took extremes to try and keep cryptocurrency from governmental crackdown by selling it as a tool for surveillance. This particular approach I don't think has much merit, except for the currying favor of the blind and power hungry as a means to create capital. 'Big government', governments of all sorts, have secrecy and security. It would have no upside - would not be a method of increasing governmental transparency - for they'd declare people 'terrorists' (like Snowden) for demanding 'secrets be revealed' - even with regard to funding (lack of Federal Reserve audits). A one-way surveillance street. BTC, separately, has the most social capital and clout today to possibly resuscitate itself against adversity. To illustrate this as a hypothetical, if crypto was banned in your country, and everywhere there might be an internet connection, which project would have the clout and thus potential resources to be revived? BTC would be the best opportunity - the block size debate being immaterial as it could be resuscitated however they wanted. The only reason it's a vulnerability for BCH in such a circumstance is due to the precedent threat (limiting block size still because of prestige) and asset preservation (those involved in BTC have funds reactivated where BCH peoples do not). Admittedly, in such conditions they could just start a new chain - but would that be politically expedient for worldwide revival? Probably not. It would undermine the idea of the preservation of value and take away from the argument of utilizing it. **Projects and Projections** The prelude of this was all the problems I saw with a resolution *to another problem*. That problem? The continued usage of fiat as the default terms a person uses to evaluate cryptocurrency. Measuring the value of a cryptocurrency in fiat includes talk like 'to the moon', displays in wallets, etc. This is inadvertently propping up the very system it's supposed to replace. There are a couple aspects as to why fiat is used as the measurement for value: The ability to think in BCH terms is tied to its ability to acquire tangible things The simpler fiat terms of for the acquisition of product (you don't look at .001 of a fiat currency, but you will see a reduction to whole numbers such as ¥100) Most people probably think the former issue is just a matter of mass adoption. Meaning, the benefit of evaluating in purely crypto terms will come when crypto succeeds. While that's likely true, it's not a good way to actually *create* success. For the latter, most people likely think that when adoption comes, *wallets* will just adapt to the success and adjust the units of BCH such that the unit (bitcent, millibit, satoshi, etc.) makes better sense for the average consumer. So, 'therefor', right now, there's "no point really" to thinking about it. In the meantime, wallets are stuck using fiat as terms for understanding crypto value instead of having wallets/price displays adjust units (displaying 0.01234 BCH vs 1.234 bitcent or 12.34 millie) against a sustainable asset. An asset it doesn't seek to replace. **Research and Results** This issue bothered me. So I had to tie the value of BCH down to something that isn't another cryptocurrency and isn't fiat. I asked around what the most bought thing with BCH was, and I got varying answers - VPS's, gift cards, and more. Too varying. So I began to think of items that everyone most needs. Fun fact: turns out after water, it's concrete. I even got creative and looked into GDP, measurements of happiness and other correlations. No dice. I decided to go with water. A bottle of water, on average, costs $1 per liter. So, I only had to acquire a method of measuring how much BCH per liter of water is but that'd easily scale real-time with the blockchain to reference as tangible value. But that wasn't possible. So, I looked to something else, like food. On its own, it was a useless measure. However, I knew that transaction fees in BCH are tied to real world things: technology, and primarily, electricity. So I looked into whether energy (electricity) values correlated with food value. Turns out, food prices are correlated with oil prices.*** Oil is used for electricity. So I did some back-of-the-napkin mathematics to figure out if I could link transaction fees at a certain date to the cost of $1 USD at a certain date. $1 USD being the stand-in for a liter of water. If they're similar enough in ratio, that means transaction fees follow a resource- which is a basis for a tangible measure of value that's really technically disconnected from the dollar. It will potentially provide self/crypto-referent measure for the adjustment of units in wallets, etc. **Back-Of-The-Napkin Mathematics** (Reminder: I am no mathematical wizard. I could also be totally off about my methods and conclusions.) Here is what I solved for: x * (BCH/USD cost) = (Liter of Water Cost) x * (Tx Fee in BCH) = (BCH Tx Fee in USD cost) Solve for x, the first results in 769.231, the second results in 808.219 when I used a particular date. Maybe it's a coincidence, but 769.23 and 808.219 seem pretty close. Maybe my methods and conclusions are all wrong - but there could be a close enough correlation with transaction fees to its real-world costs. This could mean that transaction fees in BCH could provide a basis for adjusting units and changing the units of thinking for those utilizing BCH. It would be a *Proof of Work Theory of Value*. **Criticisms** This math/logic is stupid and doesn't mean anything. Probably. This doesn't mean the problem is not real, though. As energy prices go up, won't the value of electricity and its ratio change so it begins to disconnect from the everyday? Likely not too much. Electricity is a major resource for modern life everyone interacts with. I expect also there's smarter people than I who will be able to figure out algorithms for those issues as well. TL;DR Exactly - no one wants to read "0.000..." **Final Thoughts** I hope this gets people thinking of the economy of BCH in a manner outside fiat comparisons, and that people see the value in that. I am not skilled enough nor invested enough in BCH (I have less than 10, let's just say) to explore this with more intensity. Hopefully the community can provide solutions. *"Bitcoin Cash is competing with the most powerful monopoly of all time: fiat money." - https://knuth.flipstarter.cash/ **Roger Ver discussion with Dr. Julian Hosp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6-yBOC9oIs *** "93.2% of the change in the price of food as measured by the FAO food index is statistically ‘explained’ by the change in the price of oil during this period." - https://www.financialsense.com/contributors/joseph-dancy/food-prices-mirror-oil-prices-the-crude-oil-fao-food-price-index-price-correlation

Time to get over BSV and BCHa If I were wanting to hold BCH back, for some competitor coin, I'd keep a community wrapped up in resentment for any idea that "smells" of some other infamous figure's idea or other coin. I'd encourage wrapping arguments up in names no one outside BCH cares about and cause mass disinterest. BCH won. It doesn't matter how, but they won the hash war. It won it for a measured response to block size, not to be anti-large block. It is fighting the scaling war against BTC right now (and I think won), it won the limit/anti-limit war against BSV, and it won the tax war against BCHa. Discussing block limit sizes and signaling should not be so fragile or taboo. Discussing network infrastructure, transactions per second, taking whatever technologies from other alt-coins as examples to discuss improve and BCH (yes, including from BTC, BSV, BCHa and any other currency) should all be discussed with can-do attitudes. No more getting stuck in the past. No more insecurity about losing to another coin, you're literally poised to take everything, with what BCH has survived and won. It's your battle to lose, and I value the 1 BCH I have enough to tell you: don't.