I firmly hold BCH as a long-term coin in this bull run.

The following article is an analysis of why I consider BCH as the basic logic for long-term coins.
BTC has three main branches: BTC, BCH, and BSV. BTC belongs to the conservative faction, BCH belongs to the moderate faction, and BSV belongs to the radical faction. BTC has the largest market value and is also known as the actual BTC, but the Block has a limit of only 1M, which makes it slow and congested to use, and it has the worst functionality. BCH was originally split to solve the Blockscaling problem, committed to realizing the vision of electronic cash in the White Paper, and therefore named BTC Cash. BCH has a moderate Block size and has also introduced some other features. BSV has a very large Block, and even wants to implement unlimited Blocks, making it the most radical.
These three have many supporters, and I have also thought carefully about the paths of the three. I relatively support the BCH route, but I believe that the three are not a life or death relationship. They should be able to coexist in the long term and explore different paths, leaving more sparks of life for BTC.
BTC's scalability is the worst, with slow and expensive transactions, but its Market Cap ranks first in the Cryptocurrency list. The core reason is probably its conservatism. The biggest goal of people buying BTC is for value preservation and appreciation. Security and stability are the most important, and the largest Consensus is crucial. BTC has minimal changes, is most decentralized, and therefore most trusted by people. They don't mind higher fees and slower transactions. BCH split off, with Consensus far behind BTC, but has made many improvements. It has fast transactions, low fees, and is user-friendly, with a more pragmatic approach. BSV split from BCH due to the latter's inability to meet BSV's aggressive approach. BSV claims to become a digital archive of human civilization, putting various information such as copyrights, property rights, patents, voting, and charity on-chain for certification, and developing various applications on-chain, aiming to unify all chains and carry the information of human civilization. BSV's approach is grand and aggressive.
In my opinion, the biggest role of BTC is as a store of value and currency coin. From the government to the common people, everyone needs a good means of storing value and using currency coin. Everyone is eager for profit, and all projects ultimately aim at storing value and using currency coin. By doing these two functions well, it is far more significant than all kinds of flashy gimmicks. This is also why I believe that coins other than the BTC series cannot surpass BTC. The applications developed by other coins are ultimately for making money. Once money is made, it needs to be stored and used, and BTC is money itself. Blockchain technology is not omnipotent, it can only ensure the integrity of on-chain information, and cannot guarantee the authenticity of the information source. Smart contracts can only solve online problems and cannot solve offline problems. The government wants to develop a blockchain without currency coin, while the crypto world operates on a blockchain with currency coin. Among the problems that can be solved by a blockchain with currency coin, none can match the functions of storing value and serving as a global currency. This is also why BTC has the highest market value.
But BTC has a fatal flaw, it is too conservative and refuses to expand, and a 1M block is definitely not enough. Currently, only 3-4 transactions per second can be processed on average, and only about 100 million transactions can be processed in a year. Even if it is only used for storage and not as a currency, it is not enough for the whole world to use. During the Bull Market, the handling fees can easily reach several hundred or even thousands. If it is really accepted by the whole world, the handling fees will only skyrocket, and in the long run, it will inevitably drive away ordinary users, and the prospect is not good. As BCH has already expanded, if BTC realizes the problem and expands again, it will be slapping itself in the face, and will cause BTC to split again, so BTC is basically impossible to expand.
I support BCH because it is more pragmatic and moderate. Scaling solves the problem of Block congestion, but it is not as unrealistic as BSV, which has a Great Leap Forward-style expansion. A small Block is not enough, and a large one will hinder users from running a Full Node, affecting Decentralization. BCH's moderate choice is more in line with practical needs. Moreover, Satoshi Nakamoto also proposed to scale. The 1MB limit was only a temporary restriction he gave to prevent spam transactions from maliciously inflating the Block. Currently, ordinary computers and networks can also support BCH's Block, and in the future, it can continue to scale if there is demand and network conditions allow.
Scalability is necessary, but BSV has gone to the other extreme, with 2GBlocks and even unlimited Blocks, which inevitably lead to a drastic reduction in Nodes and a significant decrease in security. If it suffers a violent attack or is banned, the system will not be able to operate. With Blocks too large, ordinary people cannot run a Full Node, and BSV users can only follow the lead of BSV pros and accept whatever rules or actions they propose. BTC is, morally and philosophically speaking, a kind of Decentralization of power, with anyone able to supervise the system's public facilities. The BCH failed to implement a miner tax last time because community members opposed it and their Nodes did not run the tax version. Ordinary users can also run Full Nodes to supervise the system and balance the pros. BTC has more supervision and balancing than performance, BSV has too much performance and insufficient balancing, while BCH maintains a balance between the two.
BSV claims to be a digital archive of human civilization, aiming to cooperate with enterprises and governments, unify the myriad chains, and envision grand ambitions, which is quite attractive. However, there are many contradictions in reality. Blockchain can only guarantee that on-chain information is not tampered with, but it cannot guarantee the authenticity of the source information. People need authoritative institutions such as the government to endorse the data. The government can easily build a consortium chain, make the data public, back it up in multiple places, and serve as a digital archive. It is also irrefutable and more convenient to manage, with much lower costs than BSV. Since people trust government data, but do not trust the government's consortium chain and insist on transferring data to BSV, this in itself is illogical.
BSV allows any data to be uploaded, but cannot guarantee the authenticity of the source of the information. It is entirely possible to upload a lot of false information to confuse people. If the information uploader is authenticated through signing, it is still possible to encounter situations where the Private Key is stolen and someone impersonates the uploader to upload false information. Therefore, BSV cannot become a digital archive at best, but more like a network disk. However, the cost of this network disk is much higher than that of a general network disk, which cannot make it widely used by the public. However, this network disk is open, transparent, and immutable, which is difficult to disappear. Therefore, many people may write their own works, achievements, experiences, and so on to seek immortality. Many pornographic, violent, murder, terrorism, anti-government, pirated and other information will also be uploaded, which is bound to make the government quite disgusted. If the big shots of BSV carry out censorship and refuse certain information, it will violate the principle of Decentralization. Who knows if they will then freeze someone's Address and refuse to package someone's transactions? Ordinary people will not trust this system. If there is no censorship, the government will not like the system, let alone cooperate with it. The route of BSV is not pleasing to either end.
The BSV Block is very large and can run many smart contracts on it, but the problem is that smart contracts cannot solve all problems, and smart contracts do not necessarily have to run on-chain. The core use of BTC is still storage and currency. In terms of storage and currency, security and decentralization are extremely important. Sacrificing security and decentralization to pursue insignificant performance improvements (such as reducing the fee of a bill from 1 cent to 0.001 cent, which seems to be reduced to 1/1000 of the original, but is meaningless to users) is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for BSV.
The practice of locking the underlying protocol of BSV is also too confident. Everyone wants to stabilize the protocol, but it cannot be stabilized by force, and it needs to be judged based on the actual situation.
In addition, CSW himself has a notorious reputation, which also seriously affects the reputation of BSV. Although he has many profound insights, the notoriety of being a fraudster will also greatly affect the development of BSV.
Overall, I prefer the moderate and balanced development model of BCH, with its balanced performance, security, and Decentralization. However, I do not believe that BCH will necessarily surpass BTC. BTC has high transaction fees, and although it may not be widely used by the general public in the future, it is still possible to be adopted by large institutions or countries as a digital gold reserve. It may serve as an anchor for Crypto Assets and not be easily replaced. BCH will continue to serve as electronic cash, catering to more ordinary people. BSV may not become a digital archive, but it can also serve as a public way to store information and can be used to back up important data. None of the three can eliminate the others; they each occupy their own ecological niche, coexist in the long term, and I continue to hold BCH with confidence.
BCH was once the biggest enemy of BTC, once wanted to bring BTC down and become the king of the blockchain world itself.
In 2017, some ambitious individuals proposed that the capacity of BTC is too small and affects efficiency. What was originally a technical dispute quickly evolved into a philosophical issue in the world of Blockchain, and it was time for people to take sides.
Some people support BCH, vote with real money, exchange their BTC for BCH, and some people firmly resist the temptation and choose BTC.
Ultimately, BTC is clearly superior, and BCH, due to various issues, is technically inadequate and lacks sufficient maintenance and adjustment, resulting in failure.
However, BCH has been left behind and has become a member of the Grayscale Fund composition.
Last year, several large asset management companies launched a highly compliant exchange, which only trades four assets: BTC, ETH, LTC, BCH.
Why choose only these four? I think it is determined by the first two industries, which are mandatory options, while the latter two are determined by interests. They look down on others and the interests are not sufficient.
This indicates that behind BCH LTC, there are speculators and financiers, and there are promoters behind them.
BTC is like water, never arguing, flowing on its own, incessantly and endlessly, as the saying goes, flowing water does not contend, but contends with its torrential flow.
Satoshi Nakamoto owns over 1 million BTC and has never sold any for economic gain.
And BCH and BSV, LTC, have been floating around in the blockchain world, like historical dust, always witnessing the development of BTC.
Meanwhile, it also encourages BTC to continue developing, otherwise they will come up and replace BTC.
And Bitcoin doesn't care, it develops on its own.
Today, BTC has begun to tell the epic story of becoming the world's reserve asset, while BCH has become a pawn of Complianceexchange, serving as a spokesperson for a certain force's cheerleading.