Bitcoin Cash Is The Original According To Reports

Bitcoin Cash Is The Original According To Reports
The Bitcoin origin debate took another turn after the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) highlighted that Bitcoin Cash, and not Bitcoin, is the original blockchain created by Satoshi Nakamoto in the latest draft of its blockchain technology primer. Despite Bitcoin Cash only coming into play after an August hard fork, and a clear picture that Bitcoin is indeed the original Nakamoto cryptocurrency, has left the NIST looking a little silly after the 57 page 'Blockchain Technology Overview' was found to have incorrect information within it. The stance is highly questionable, thanks to Bitcoin Cash only being created through the hard fork that took place on August the 1st, and the claim that Segregated Witness (SegWit), a scaling solution also activated in August, is incompatible with legacy software versions is also untrue. Bitcoin Cash aims to make blockchain currencies more scalable, and whilst closer to Nakamoto's original vision, Bitcoin Cash is certainly not the original blockchain. Advocates claim that the original blockchain has diverged considerably from what Bitcoin was supposed to look like, but concur that Bitcoin cash, although much closer, still isn't the original. The other important comments on SegWit are off the mark thanks to SegWit actually being activated through a soft fork, making it fully compatible with legacy Bitcoin software, an important difference for SegWit users. Aversion to a hard fork was one of the reasons that SegWit2x, which would have raised Bitcoin's block size to 2MB, failed to gain support and was ultimately dropped by its chief advocates. The NIST is accepting public comments on the draft until the 23rd of February, and there have already been plenty of fact-checks and opinions put forward by industry and cryptocurrency experts. It looks like there'll be a lot more input into the high-level technical overview before publishing, to ensure that all facts stated are indeed correct. Sponsored by
Related Topics: