BTC is currently charging $140,000 every 10 to 15 minutes to store less than a single Floppy Disk of data across 10,000 nodes. BCH does the same thing for $20, across 1,000 nodes.
We know that there was an extraordinary event in the world of mining, and the event revealed new facts and dispelled some lies. These are some very inconvenient and somewhat painful truths, but the truth is often bitter. People who oppose BCH like to bash BCH for being less secure and not decentralized because it only carries 1-3% of the hash rate of BTC. They point to the fact that sometimes one BCH mining pool will dominate upwards of 35%, and sometimes nearing 50% for brief periods.
Yet just a few days ago, a coal power plant in China went offline and at the same time, 53% of all SHA-256 hashing disappeared i.e. half of BTC hashing disappeared. So much for decentralization! It is now a proven fact the BTC doesn't have a leg to stand on when it tries to claim the decentralization and security high ground when half of its hashing is in one region of China. And not all mining in China was affected by the outage, which means even some greater yet unknown percentage of mining is held in China.
This post is stating the fact that because half of BTC hashing is gone, it can only average about half the blocks. This has driven up the fees from ~$40K per block to $140K per block in less than a week. Daily fees have gone from $5M per day to $17M per day and continues to climb. So BTC isn't as decentralized as they've claimed, hashing has been cut in half, so security is theoretically half, and yet users are now having to pay 3 times as much for half the network.
This isn't bashing, these are quantitative facts from the links provided, and these facts may be painful to accept, especially when an aptly priced alternative, BCH, exists. It is events like these, that should the market understand the ramifications and outright lies, there can and will be a shift in market dominance.
The reason why BTC really isn't useful for transactions is that the software imposed 1MB block only supports a peak of 7 transactions per second. This artificially limited supply will drive up fees, making it only useful for large stake holders. If the fee rate exceeds the value of someone's BTC balance, then their balance becomes un-spendable "dust", because the balance can't cover the fee required to record the spend. These dust coins are effectively lost coins until perhaps some major lull in transactions provides a window of opportunity to spend. If that lull comes and you can sell your coins, the only person likely to buy your position will be a large-scale investor and their leverage will be expensive. The more coins that become trapped as dust, the supply of usable coins shrinks. When supply shrinks, the price climbs higher. This price action spurs more buying and selling, which drives the fees higher, and of course, the higher fees create more unspendable dust. See where the positive feedback loop is going! Only those with balances far exceeding the fees are safe from becoming dust (sediment). You might have some Gold 2.0, but you may find the fees turn it to Dust 0.0
If the market participants don't really care about these facts, they may wake up to the news one day and hoped they had cared. I feel at least I've made an attempt to expose these glaring differences.
(Data were taken from Average Block Reward Section on fork.lol, Average Block Size on blockchain.com, and bitnodes.io)