BCH ship has sailed, course charted for iceberg.

Same fate as everything else because you can only discover something one time, to put it strongly.

There are many different developers around the world who regularly convene online in various forums to work out ways to improve Bitcoin, and thus far there have been four augmentations. P2SH, RBF, SegWit, and Taproot. All were implemented after 95% consensus among miners. None of them alter Bitcoin's core foundation, which is what the block wars were about.

Gaven Andresen wanted to increase transaction throughput of the network by increasing block size. The proposal was popular, because 'medium of exchange' seemed more realistic that way. So they tried it out with 750 block countdown before experimental fork.

Adam Back disagreed with this schedule citing security concerns.

Firstly, everyone who had, we'll say, 5 bitcoins, at the time of the fork automatically had 5 BCH. This was not OK. They rolled with it.

Second, since there was so much infighting about it, in November 2017 the quintessentially democratic body of peer to peer nodes placed the decision--between three different proposed blocksize modification forks implemented via mining software clients (Releases G thru H of Bitcoin XT, a.k.a. Bitcoin Cash)--directly in the hands of the collective hashpower that would be continuing with one of them as Bitcoin forevermore....

All three software clients attempted to increase transaction capacity of the network. None achieved a majority of the hash power. And just like that, BCH is a filthy ICO shitcoin. Queue other idiots to do it two more times with Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Gold. Three more times if you count BCH forking their own fork to print more money with their XEC clown show.

One of the greatest examples of the superiority of open source technology versus proprietary stagnation the world will ever know. Tick tock, next block.