I wouldn't give a toss if BCH had gone off on their own, like so many other forks after, and just did their thing.
(...)
Roger Ver has been insisting that BCH is Bitcoin. It is not. By the very virtue of having to fork, it can't be the same thing anymore. Ever.

What is Bitcoin, who defines what a Bitcoin is? The first question is (relatively) easy to answer, the second is more diffuse - but I believe eventually the super-majority of miners, exchanges and users decide - and they have clearly decided that BCH is not Bitcoin.

In my opinion there wasn't one fork on the 1st of August, there was two forks - and it could even have been three forks.

• The SegWit2X fork: Introducing the SegWit patch, on a promise that there would be a doubling of the base block size limit some few month later. Deliberately made to be compatible with the UASF if miners would be quick enough to signal support for SegWit2X - which they did. The 2X-promise was later broken.

• The UASF fork: A bitcoin user cult, much like the BCH cult, trying to break away from a majority of miners who didn't want SegWit. If it wasn't for SegWit2X, I firmly believe we'd have had a bitcoin with bigger blocks and without SegWit today, and the UASF-coin would have been the altcoin.

• Bitcoin Cash: increasing the block size and including some parts of the SegWit patch.

I don't see any of those three being more "Bitcoin" than the other, from a pure technical point of view.