QUOTE(Arith Undine @ Dec 28 2017, 11:49)

Plus, would you share your personal point of view for the future of BCH against BTC?
Oh, I missed this one.
It's a complex question with a complex answer. The blame for the current high fees can be divided up three ways. It partially goes to the miners, for stalling SegWit for eight or nine months, meaning that adoption is eight or nine months where it would otherwise be. It partially goes to major companies involved with BTC, who have been exceedingly slow to upgrade their system to take advantage of the additional capacity SegWit added. And it partially goes to the core devs, who should have taken the initiative to change to a slowly increasing or adaptive blocksize scaling years ago.
However, on-chain doesn't scale long term. You can already see this with Ethereum. It's basically at the breaking point, blocks are as large as they can make them without having [
etherscan.io]
the rate of uncle blocks go completely nuts, and fees and pending transaction are [
etherscan.io]
creeping up towards BTC levels.
BCH can probably scale easily to 10 MB blocks and maybe even 100 MB blocks, but if you actually want VISA-level transaction capacity, you need much more than the 3-400 tps you would get from that. So for a blockchain-based coin, second-layer solutions like Lightning seem strictly necessary. The question for BTC is whether or not it is too little and too late.
One alternative is DAG-based coins, like IOTA and Raiblocks. However, these seem really fragile to me, and I expect that they won't survive in the real world whenever someone gets an incentive to short and crash them.