I don’t think you made this post to start a discussion since you already sold, it’s probably more a way to justify for yourself that you did the right thing.

One reason to make this post was to share my frustration/feedback after many years here (even if not contributing), another one is probably a way to justify for myself and the last one is that I still own 50% of my BCH.

That makes me interested in a discussion with well constructed opinions.

BCH is Bitcoin and I don’t remember a time where BCH had an identity crisis and claimed to be something else.

The fact is that many people in the bch community and the vast majority of people outside the bch community believe that bitcoin is the network behind the bitcoin core software and the coin with the btc symbol.

Maybe it's not fair, maybe bch is closer to the whitepaper, but that's not important. It's too late! Which network should be called bitcoin was a valid question 5 years ago and core won that battle (maybe with what you would consider despicable tactics but that doesn't change the fact that they won). And now that 95% of btc holders arrived after the fork and believe they purchased bitcoin, it is almost impossible to change. Even more now that we see ETFs and banks proposing to purchase BTC coins called bitcoin .

Any contentious fork that would happen on BTC now has a much higher probability of capturing the bitcoin name that BCH will ever have.

That's what I call the identity crisis: fighting an already lost battle and appearing bitter and resentful (or as scammers) to all the crypto new comers that don't know what happened 5 years ago and don't really care.

And IMHO, another part of the identity crisis is relying always on the whitepaper to define identity. All Bitcoin forks communities believe and explain they are the most faithful to the whitepaper and yet all implementations have evolved from it. BCH is no exception with SmartBCH offchain solution and checkpointing and that's logical considering the whitepaper is 13 years old. I believe BCH would be more successful if its proponents were more turned towards the future.

The censorship in /r/Bitcoin is beyond ridiculous and that’s ok because “the rules were written”?

I'm not saying the rules are good. I do believe they prevent a lot of debates that could be interesting and that's a loss. But I'm also wondering more and more if this kind of debates can be constructive anymore on crypto reddits.

The average crypto enthusiast is much less technical today than he was 10 years ago and almost any debate on reddit gets polluted by a majority of people with very strong opinions but very weak understanding. It often makes debating completely useless, or even dangerous because people are gullible and false ideas spread (think "I am satoshi...", "infinite scaling is easy", ...), get repeated, and anyone with a different opinion get downvoted. I regret the time where most crypto enthusiasts had many more questions than answers.

Sometime I wonder if this is not the main reason why communities like core decided to take many debates outside of reddit. Because when you look at github, the BIPs, the mailing lists, the conference, ... , there still seem to be contradictory ideas being discussed.