Topic: US Government Claims Bitcoin Cash Is ‘Original’ Bitcoin (Read 247 times)
Don t make the mistake of thinking the client and the block chain are the same thing. Bitcoin is just the chain. The client is just an enabler. The value is in the data
I don't understand why people keep calling it a fork. I just carried on running my core node, and I'm with the real Bitcoin. However, I can copy my blockchain, and run a cash node to pick up some Cash coins, That is completely separate from my original node. I consider cash to be a parallel coin with a divergence at whatever height it was that started the divergence.
I look at this and have to laugh...
Hey guys has anyone ever googled a which dev
"supposedly committed suicide that was working on bitcoin in 2012"
I smell the AIC backwards fishing for power?
have a great day please DON'T TREAD ON ME!
(google bitcoin's exchnge dev kills herself i think it happened it Singapore)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573863/Bitcoin-exchange-CEO-dead-home-suspected-suicide-age-28.html
Hey guys has anyone ever googled a which dev
"supposedly committed suicide that was working on bitcoin in 2012"
I smell the AIC backwards fishing for power?
have a great day please DON'T TREAD ON ME!
(google bitcoin's exchnge dev kills herself i think it happened it Singapore)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573863/Bitcoin-exchange-CEO-dead-home-suspected-suicide-age-28.html
I was surprised by this news bit when I read it and even saw a mention of NIST. There are different factions on which one is the real bitcoin. Some from those who use the technical standpoint, i.e., BCH was a hardfork, and some from those who use the ideological standpoint, i.e., Bitcoin is what the consensus says.
This paper made a huge error though as a technical document/paper. It's unusual even for a draft.
This paper made a huge error though as a technical document/paper. It's unusual even for a draft.
A US government institute has claimed Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the “original” Bitcoin while Bitcoin itself (BTC) is a “fork” in a surprising official research into cryptocurrency.
In a document titled “Blockchain Technology Overview” from the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the US Department of Commerce, authors Dylan Yaga, Peter Mell, Nik Roby and Karen Scarfone claim that “technically,” the perception that BTC is the genuine version of Bitcoin is incorrect.
“When SegWit was activated, it caused a hard fork, and all the mining nodes and users who did not want to change started calling the original Bitcoin blockchain Bitcoin Cash (BCC),” they write.
Read more
https://cointelegraph.com/news/fork-fail-us-government-claims-bitcoin-cash-is-original-bitcoin
In a document titled “Blockchain Technology Overview” from the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the US Department of Commerce, authors Dylan Yaga, Peter Mell, Nik Roby and Karen Scarfone claim that “technically,” the perception that BTC is the genuine version of Bitcoin is incorrect.
“When SegWit was activated, it caused a hard fork, and all the mining nodes and users who did not want to change started calling the original Bitcoin blockchain Bitcoin Cash (BCC),” they write.
Read more
https://cointelegraph.com/news/fork-fail-us-government-claims-bitcoin-cash-is-original-bitcoin
Wow, crazy to see the Nist behind this article. This is huge because if you realize who is Nist, they are the ones who make the rules for almost anything
So, will be important to keep an eye on this, because will be one crazy colossal business vs the coin developers and miners, who will win this fight, let's keep tuned.
They say bch is the original chain but will be hard to see people believing it.
This has now been corrected by them after no doubt being buried under a blizzard of annoyed emails. Those pesky Bcashers are like rats. As soon as one finds an opening you find them infesting you.
They are government, they can claim whatever they want and push up whatever theories bthey wish to. Everyone knows the actual truth. Bitcoin has been there since a long time ago, Bitcoin cash came as a fork from the main Bitcoin. Everyone into Crypto knows that and the government can go ahead and say whatever they like.
how important is this kind of document?
bitcoin's Whole idea is that it's a distributed system controlled through consensus.
The 'real' Bitcoin is whatever people 'consent' to calling Bitcoin and trade as Bitcoin. It doesn't matter who developes what sosftware, or who sponsors which project.
The 'real' Bitcoin is whatever people 'consent' to calling Bitcoin and trade as Bitcoin. It doesn't matter who developes what sosftware, or who sponsors which project.
That's some interesting news which might cause Bitcoin Cash price to increase (I still haven't checked exchanges). Don't you think that the only purpose of this statement was to pump Bcash which would allow the US Government to exchange BCH fo BTC? Also, I'm quite surprised that they choose SegWit. As far as I remember, SegWit was only a softfork so why would anyone call Bcash to be the original chain when it was a hardfork?
They say it because they are the government and many people will follow them eventhough what they are said is unrealistic. As we can see, bitcoin exists in 2009 and if it is the real BCC, why they did not think in the past few years to change their name? They want just to prove it right now? Also, why the BCC want to compete with BTC? I do not really trust the story. The author will dictate what he or she want to write and what are on his perception.
P.S.
I do not inflict the person who started this thread, I did not trust the article you've share.
P.S.
I do not inflict the person who started this thread, I did not trust the article you've share.
If these sort of mistakes are made in a research paper before publishing they no longer have the reputation to call them credible
A draft has no bearing on their reputation. Their reputation should be determined from the information that they publish. It's this article's writer's reputation that should be questioned for ignoring extremely important details in order to exaggerate the situation.you should run away from BCH screaming even if you were supporting it because it is the proof that bitcoin cash was a hostile take over of some groups with 3 letters in their names trying to take over bitcoin.
For one thing, it's obviously not evidence, since it would only be that if the organisation admitted to being managed by the same people as Bitcoin Cash developers, which they didn't. This also doesn't even show support for Bitcoin Cash, just a mistake in a draft paper.
If I am a king and said that I AM the real bitcoin would you believe me ? 
In my own opinion, BCC are easier to manipulate by the Government than Bitcoins. That's is why government is spreading such statement. Bcc is centralizd that they could easily regulate.
Or someone just wanted another pump for profits and dump it afterwards.
In my own opinion, BCC are easier to manipulate by the Government than Bitcoins. That's is why government is spreading such statement. Bcc is centralizd that they could easily regulate.
Or someone just wanted another pump for profits and dump it afterwards.
This is an interesting interpretation of events and is worthy to bear in mind they say “this document attempts to bring a high-level understanding of the technology.It is not that much easy to describe it by the way. 
first of all this statement:
is scary as shit...
you should run away from BCH screaming even if you were supporting it because it is the proof that bitcoin cash was a hostile take over of some groups with 3 letters in their names trying to take over bitcoin.
secondly, whoever said this quoted statement, either doesn't have any idea what consensus means or they have Alzheimer disease and have forgotten that 95% and eventually 100% of the miners were signalling for SegWit and users, which was majority of the bitcoin nodes were supporting SegWit...
and to put simply the chain with SegWit aka the chain with the overwhelming majority support is as it has always been... bitcoin...
A US government institute has claimed Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the “original” Bitcoin while Bitcoin itself (BTC) is a “fork”
is scary as shit...
you should run away from BCH screaming even if you were supporting it because it is the proof that bitcoin cash was a hostile take over of some groups with 3 letters in their names trying to take over bitcoin.
“When SegWit was activated, it caused a hard fork, and all the mining nodes and users who did not want to change started calling the original Bitcoin blockchain Bitcoin Cash (BCC),” they write.
secondly, whoever said this quoted statement, either doesn't have any idea what consensus means or they have Alzheimer disease and have forgotten that 95% and eventually 100% of the miners were signalling for SegWit and users, which was majority of the bitcoin nodes were supporting SegWit...
and to put simply the chain with SegWit aka the chain with the overwhelming majority support is as it has always been... bitcoin...
Well, Ethereum Classic also the original chain. 
Funny to see a lot of libertarians and anarchists promoting the USA government position like we should give a fuck about it.
Funny to see a lot of libertarians and anarchists promoting the USA government position like we should give a fuck about it.
First and foremost it is a flawed finding and somehow these institutions are trying to make confusion amongst the casual investors ,i cannot find their research papers to prove their findings, rather it looks like they are declaring something that they heard from BCH team and giving them the approval to be the original version. ,last week the ratings agency came up with their crypto currency rating and they have given ethereum a higher rating than bitcoin. 
,last week the ratings agency came up with their crypto currency rating and they have given ethereum a higher rating than bitcoin. It seems that the article was a draft and they have been corrected on the mistake they made during the draft.
It's perfectly understandable that in the process of compiling research, they would have made some mistakes, especially considering the amount of biased information that's available on either side.
If these sort of mistakes are made in a research paper before publishing they no longer have the reputation to call them credible. It's perfectly understandable that in the process of compiling research, they would have made some mistakes, especially considering the amount of biased information that's available on either side.
No, they mistaken or thought outdated technology as original technology and refuse that the real bitcoin is the one that majority agree is the real bitcoin.
it's all outdated and won't scale because the development team did not have the skill to do much apart from learning
how to burn out CPU with the CPU-Wars that the system apparently needs.
Even IOTA is not up for the job long term but it is 12 times faster than Bitcoin so won't be long me thinks
before the old steam engine is taken off the track
Oh seriously? Bitcoin price is dropping, and now an article like this appeared and this can lead to people exchanging their bitcoin because they think it's not the original one, and move to bch insead.
I don't really understand about this thing, but as long as i know, it's bitcoin, not bitcoin cash. I remember there were split or whatever it is and make bitcoin becomes two, but looking that bitcoin is more popular than bitcoin cash proves, doesn't it? Kinda funny if the original one lose to it's fork. Whatever i'm not really care, for me bitcoin is bitcoin.
I don't really understand about this thing, but as long as i know, it's bitcoin, not bitcoin cash. I remember there were split or whatever it is and make bitcoin becomes two, but looking that bitcoin is more popular than bitcoin cash proves, doesn't it? Kinda funny if the original one lose to it's fork. Whatever i'm not really care, for me bitcoin is bitcoin.
Well the BTC development team won't listen to developers and have just become banker puppets
and have now built banker hubs into the Lightning Network and did nothing to lower the fees
which they could had done in seconds if they want to
Kind of make me want to but some Bitcoin Cash or wait ever and a day for Coinbase to give me the ones they
owe me
and have now built banker hubs into the Lightning Network and did nothing to lower the fees
which they could had done in seconds if they want to
Kind of make me want to but some Bitcoin Cash or wait ever and a day for Coinbase to give me the ones they
owe me
Jump to: