The BCH & BTC chains have the same history before BCH did a hardfork. Everyone who had BTC coins at that moment also had the same amount of BCH. I have not heard that CSW was asked to burn his coins. However, if this is true, why should he be asked to burn his BCH coins? No one else was asked to burn their BCH. This may be related to CSW making claims in the past that he is Satoshi, the creator of Bitcoin. So far CSW has made no conclusive proof that he is indeed Satoshi.
Also, BCH is not just BTC without segwit. It has several modifications to the code. 1st modification is that it added replay protection. Each transaction has a flag added to the signature, so that the transactions do not get played again on the BTC chain and vice versa. Also, BCH has a difficulty adjustment on each block, instead of a difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks. There are other modifications as well and in November, Bitcoin ABC is implementing a hardfork which will introduce additional changes.
Furthermore, at the moment, BCH is not as secure as BTC because it has less hashrate. That means it is cheaper to implement a 51% attack on BCH than BTC. However, this can change if miners simply start switching their hashrate to BCH instead of BTC. This may happen if BCH is used much more, since the total amount of the fees the miners collect each block could exceed what they could get on the BTC chain. People may start finding BCH more attractive since the bigger blocks make each individual tx less expensive.
BTC is trying to solve the limited transaction problem by moving the transactions off chain through the Lightning Network. Although, someone could transact very cheaply, this can only happen once the have opened a channel. The act of opening a channel must be performed on chain, and could end up being very expensive if the BTC blocks start filling up. I suppose normal folks could use a gateway which would open up several channels at once using only one tx, and be slightly cheaper per individual. In my opinion, it seems like a rather convoluted and less secure way to transact. I could be wrong since I cannot really make much sense out of it.  

There are no lost coins on the BTC chain. When BCH split from BTC, it did not require BTC be lost or destroyed. All of the coins that existed on the BTC chain at that point were now BCH coins on the BCH chain too. After the split, any new BTC created are only on the BTC chain and any new BCH are now only on the BCH chain.

Now if what you mean by "lost" are coins that were originally on the BTC chain that are not recoverable, because no one has the private key; those coins are also not recoverable of the BCH chain.

Edit: Maybe this explanation will help further.

A blockchain, when used in a cryptocurrency, is a type of ledger that records transactions. There are certain rules that must be followed to make entries into this ledger. If someone tries to make an entry in that ledger that does not follow the rules, the entry is rejected and does not become a part of the ledger. When BCH came into existence, it basically copied the BTC blockchain. It's almost like taking any file on your computer, copying it and then saving it with a different name. BCH also implemented new rules that went into effect on block 478,558. In order to add a new transaction to the BCH blockchain/ledger those new rules had to be followed from that point forward. These new rules violate the rules for the BTC blockchain, so they won't be added to the BTC blockchain. So now we have two distinct blockchains. Although they appear to be them same for the first 478,557 blocks, they are now completely different.

Wow

Dump baby Dump

Just a few questions I have. BCH was created because of the block size issue correct? How was bitcoin every supposed to achieve global adoption at a 1MB block size limit? Secondly, in the Kleiman Vs. Wright court documents, Craig Wright and David Kleiman are pointed out to be satoshi nakamoto. If BCH is faster and cheaper, why is it not better than Bitcoin then? Seems that the only argument people have for me against that is that BTC is the original and BCH is a copy.

I have been researching this non stop and there are too many conflicting opinions, let me ask you this. If 5 billion people are demanding BCH to use as a currency every day, wouldn't that make the value of it skyrocket? Seems to me thats what bch wants to do. Also, there is a difference in what ABC wants to do with BCH than the direction Nchain wants to go with it. I know im missing alot of information, and I may have some facts wrong, but im still a noob and im still learning. I know there were more people involved in the satoshi nakamoto group but according to the legal documents in Kleiman V Wright, those two are the brains behind it, wright being the economical brain and kleiman being the technical brain if im not mistaken. Unless of course they stole the idea from someone else?


Im not trying to debate, I will clarify again that I am a noob and have only been in the crypto space for about a year. I have many friends who have been in it since 2009 but they all have conflicting opinions with facts to back them up about the whole BTC/BCH feud. Im just trying to clear up the fog.

Well, you're thinking for yourself -- that's good. You'll note that people like BitcoinPsycho never offer up any reasoning to back up their claims. He/she is just trying to browbeat you into toeing the Core narrative line.

Here is an excerpt from the bitcoin white paper:


If BCH had not implemented replay protection, it would have been orphaned out of existence long ago. BTC still has the most hash rate invested in it. When and if things start turning around, BCH can claim that they are indeed bitcoin.

Now one can argue that BTC has lost it's way and has strayed far from what is outlined from the original satoshi vision. However, it is very clear from the whitepaper that the chain with the greatest proof of work is always the most legit. Prefer BCH over BTC? Then get an ASIC and mine BCH. You may also attempt to do something that will make BCH more attractive to miners. Using BCH contributes because your fees help attract miners. Also, buying BCH contributes because it pushes the market price a little higher making it more attractive to miners. In the end, the miners have the votes. Get used to it. That is Nakamoto consensus.

So then why do so many people in the crypto community trash CSW and call him a scammer when there is legally verified evidence that he was a part of satoshi?