The problem is Bitcoin Core, at least some part of it’s developers, pushing their own agenda to implement SegWit and Lightning network. Both solutions have a lot of technical debt and possible security problems, they were controversial from the beginning, that’s why miners were refusing to implement SegWit for over a year. Now we have Bitcoin Cash which has solved those problems in a simple way, at least for now. Bitcoin Cash is more like a desperate effort to fix the damage done by Bitcoin Core and make Bitcoin usable again.

I'm actually surprised at how much bitcoin cash pushing there is. I started thinking it was trolling and spam accounts, but im getting convinced of otherwise by now.

Its like a storm brewing.

Yeah the PR tells it as it is

Ignoring btc's problems and calling forks"scams" won't fly for long

"It's no one's fault in particular that Bitcoin's user experience has changed" - jlopp . Apparently blocking all proposed changes relating to scaling Bitcoin and lowering fees is the fault of "no one".

Can someone suggest a stable priced crypto that is actually useful for transactions? I have zero interest in speculating on the values of these things, but I would really like to start using crypto currency obtained from cash ATM's for all of my online purchases and avoid ever entering a credit card number anywhere again. Why hasn't that been solved?

I don't see what the excitement is about blockchain. Can't you do the same stuff with SQL?

Blockchain:

* Separates your transactions into blocks and hashes the blocks together.

* Uses proof-of-work to add new blocks.

* Is slow (a block has to be filled).

* Is unreliable (your transaction may be rejected).

* Locks transactions at the block level.

* Easy for user to lose unique tokens (coins).

My SQL design for blockchain replacement:

* Take a database table.

* Allow INSERT permission only.

* Hash each record and insert the hash into next record, which chains them together like blockchain.

* Replicate the database.

This is like blockchain, because it hashes the records together, can't be modified, and has backups to ensure it can't be modified.

Unlike blockchain, it:

* Is centralized but still has backups.

* Is cheap (does not require proof of work).

* Is fast (one transaction at a time).

* Is reliable (ACID transactions).

* Locks transactions at the record level.

* User not required to keep track of coins.

So what's so great about blockchain compared to this design? The only thing blockchain does better is that there is no central server, so it's hard to shut down. But for industry use, no one is going to shut down their intranet servers. Only criminals need to worry about being shut down.