Because I don't find anything that does better than litecoin. Also this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY shows the fundamentally different viewpoints between bitcoin and bitcoin cash. As someone mentions in the video what bitcoin cash is trying to do is implement business logic inside the protocol which is a layer violation.
Litecoin is basically following Bitcoin's approach to scaling which will leave it congested if it gets popular enough. Litecoin already has much higher fees than Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin's development has basically been nonexistent since it's invention and has only been copying Bitcoin ever since. Bitcoin Cash is also quickly gaining merchant adoption with for example BitPay, something Litecoin has failed to do in many years. The network effect is a powerful thing.
That Bitcoin Cash would implement "business logic" is just wrong. It simply removes the artificial blocksize limit and does not try to prevent users from utilizing 0-conf if they so choose. From that point it is Bitcoin which is forcing out valid use cases (low value transactions, opt in 0-conf).
Bitcoin cash's approach to scaling is just not sustainable and leads to centralization. You cant just increase the block size each time the mempool fills. In a couple of years no one would be capable to run a full node on consumer hardware. Also you open up all kinds of different ways for the network to be attacked. With a 1MB block size an attack block will take 40 seconds to validate with a 2MB size it will take 14 minutes. The correct solution to scaling is a Layer 2 protocol.
Bitcoin Cash's mantra is that they want people to treat 0-confirmation transactions as safe which is absolutely the opposite of what the whole protocol is about. Check this infographic that was tweeted a few hours ago https://twitter.com/Bitcoin/status/949019786704547842
This black and white thinking is just not practical. "Since very large increases will disallow nodes on consumer hardware we will block any increase" is just poor engineering.
The approach of Bitcoin Cash is to allow the increase when possible. 8MB is for example perfectly doable today on consumer hardware. Investigations are ongoing for how large the blocks can become and improvmenets are being made on for example propagation time and allowing faster startup of nodes.
For example 1GB have been propagated and validated in a timely manner by consumer hardware existing today. (Not saying we should bump it up right now, but the capabilities are here).
> With a 1MB block size an attack block will take 40 seconds to validate with a 2MB size it will take 14 minutes.
That's just wrong.
Edit: Because Bitcoin Cash eliminates the quadratic hashing problem.
> Bitcoin Cash's mantra is that they want people to treat 0-confirmation transactions as safe which is absolutely the opposite of what the whole protocol is about.
No it's not. There are different degrees of safe which Bitcoin totally fails to acknowledge. Buying a coffee with 0-conf and a basic double spend heuristic is perfectly fine and has been done on Bitcoin until full blocks (and RBF) killed it, for example by shapeshift. xmr.to which converts Monero to Bitcoin is also accepting 0-conf for smaller amounts.
Here again the extremist black and white thinking is bad.
> The correct solution to scaling is a Layer 2 protocol.
No, the correct solution combines on-chain and off-chain scaling.
