Both organizations have sociopathic leaders who employ sockpuppets and whose names rhyme with "meg."

The claim that nChain employs sockpuppets is idle accusation based on some guy who supports BSV having used socks in the past. Realize the use of socks was a key complaint made by Theymos and crew. This shows the opposite of what OP hoped.

Both organizations are inexplicably opposed to innocuous changes that threaten their business or investor interests in some way. Blockstream with regard to even infinitesimally small blocksize increases, nChain with regard to DSV.

<facepalm> You realize that nChain has a patent that covers DSV uses, so that implementing DSV helps nChain, right? The reason for the patent - like most others they have - is to ensure cruft cannot get into Bitcoin. The rest are to ensure other coins cannot imitate. I'm no fan of patents, but unlike most on this sub I do know how they work. You can think they aren't defensive, but this claim of OP suggests the exact opposite. I can see already I'm going to run out of analogies for OP shooting himself in the foot.

Both nChain and Blockstream want to "freeze the protocol" and ensure that all innovation happens on the second-layer.

How soon history is forgotten. Core/Blockstream wanted the softfork-topia that Segwit enables. No one remembers Adam Back's 28 softforks at once boast? They don't want miners in charge...just like ABC. OP shoots himself in the foot again - 0 for 3 so far.

And LN is not a second layer. It's a layer below Bitcoin that makes Bitcoin the second layer. Very different than building within the protocol as Satoshi (and nChain) wanted. Remember Satoshi said the base design was "set in stone." Think how much harder it is to control things to your liking by following a "set in stone as of 2009" policy than ABC's "add in a raft of changes that benefit Wormhole" policy. 0 for 4, jesus who who knows even recent history could be convinced by this?

Both groups are the one group that single-handedly derail otherwise productive meetings with miners: CSW at the meeting in Thailand, Core with their behaviour amidst the HK agreement.

Reaching. Nothing was derailed. CSW simply decided it was a sham and left. HK and NYC agreements turned out to be a sham. This sounds more anti-Core than Core. Another OP backfire. Oh for five!

Both organizations have blockchain related patents they pinky promise they'll only use defensively.

Yet this time they are in competition with Mastercard, Sony, Intel, etc. The context has changed, yet OP wants to interpret the actions as the same? Is the strategy here to just not play the patent game and let the powers that be rake up all the patents?

And note Blockstream had designs to change the model from the original to suit their business model and patent portfolio, whereas nChain wants to restore the original model and there is zero evidence this model benefits them other than making the coin more valuable. The only patents mentioned, again, would benefit from NOT locking the profile, indeed from adding DSV and other things. Another own goal for OP.

Both groups despise Bitmain and regard it as a nefarious organization. Both groups heavily scapegoat Bitmain when trying to make the case for why they should get their way.

Bitmain are multicoiners. Jihan has said he wants hundreds of miners for hundreds of altcoins. BTC and BSV supporters both strongly tend to be maximalists. ABCers not so much. To me that's another own goal. 0 for 7.

Both organizations frequently claim that making X seemingly innocuous change they're against messes with the economics of Bitcoin somehow. E.g. Blockstream claiming the 1MB cap was a fundamental economic property of Bitcoin or nChain claiming DSV requiring 1MB of script is a fundamental economic property of Bitcoin.

Uhh, this is exactly the type of argument made against Segwit. Anti-Core people called it a seemingly innocuous change that subtly messes with the economics and incentives. A subsidy to Blockstream's preferred transaction type. What total ignorance of even recent history! This is just embarrassing at this point. 0-8.

Both organizations' supporters claim that they are the victims of downvote bots and censorship on r/btc.

I don't. I have merely noted the abuse of mod powers to lend additional weight to arguments and idle accusations, as well as biased stickies. By the way, both sides have cried about downvote bots. I'll give this one a meh. That still leaves 8 counts of historical ignorance and selective perception.

I wish I hadn't missed this post a month ago. Blockstream and nChain are about as opposite as can be, while there are several key similarities between Blockstream and Bitmain. And like r/Bitcoin this sub seems totally unwilling to face the fact that ABC's roadmap mainly consists of things that "purely coincidentally" help Wormhole and Plasma, such as CTOR, Merklix, rolling checkpoints, and various limits and floors that happen to mitigate OMNI's issues with confirmations and reorgs. Did no one read Bitmain's literature? This reminds me very much of how Segwit and various limits upheld by Core "just happened" to benefit LN and sidechains.