Peter Rizun repeatedly emphasises that he wants "P2P ecash", and he only supports Bitcoin Cash (BCH) because it is "the most promising means of achieving that end".

His latest Twitter poll is a manifestation of this. In addition to BTC and BCH as two implementations of the "P2P ecash" idea - with differing degrees of success - Rizun feels the need to explicitly offer the generic idea of "P2P ecash" as a third option besides the two implementations.

But perhaps indicative of why BTC's market price has so far outperformed BCH's, by artificially splitting the vote between BCH and "P2P ecash", BTC defeats BCH. When someone comments the obvious - BCH and "P2P ecash" are the same - he tries to convince this person they should vote "P2P ecash" and not BCH. What purpose does this serve? Surely BCH would have won this poll without this third option. Backing BCH would actually advance the realisation of "P2P ecash".

There is no indication BTC will increase its block size limit. There is no indication BCH will cease being peer-to-peer electronic cash. There is no indication BCH cannot overcome attacks. There is no indication BCH developers are malicious. There is no indication BCH users will be unable to escape any malicious developers by forking away from them. There is no indication BCH users will be unable to escape any evil miners by changing proof-of-work. There is no indication Bitcoin Unlimited itself will be unable to fund development of BCH or any future fork thereof.

It took me some time to realise, but essentially it's all fear, uncertainty, and doubt - FUD. Leaders of Bitcoin Unlimited, and thereby leaders of Bitcoin Cash, should seek to remove FUD about the project, not create it. And since even Rizun acknowledges BCH is the most promising realisation of "P2P ecash", he is scoring an own goal every time he pushes this argument.

Because those who would give up Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to pursue "bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system", deserve neither and will lose both.