NIST Says Bitcoin Cash Is The Real Bitcoin... And It Is Making Me Sick
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the US Department of Commerce with a nearly $1 billion annual budget, has wasted more extorted money and just released an introduction to the technology behind bitcoin.
The document, titled creatively by some bureaurat, “Interagency Report: Blockchain Technology Overview” introduces the concept, discusses its use in cryptocurrency, and showcases broader applications.
Of most interest to me, though, was this paragraph:
As many know, I have severely questioned the route Bitcoin Core (known as bitcoin to most) has taken and have even said in various venues that Bitcoin Cash is closer to the real bitcoin than Bitcoin Core’s version is.
But, to see NIST agree with me today makes me feel ill.
After all, this is the same organization that said that the World Trade Center towers defied all physics on 9/11 and the top 20 floors accelerated at freefall speed through the bottom 80 floors turning into dust instantly and smoldering in molten lava that burned without oxygen for weeks… And that the 52-story World Trade Center 7 also fell into its own footprint at freefall speed due to “debris” and some small office fires after Lucky Larry Silverstein said to “pull it” and the BBC reported it collapsed 20 minutes before it did.
So, NIST is not exactly the best source of credible information! It’s kind of the opposite.
NIST is basically a propaganda arm of the US government. And, they have been complicit in trying to put back doors into cryptographic technologies when not busy working on propaganda.
And, as per their M.O., they even got their analysis wrong. Segwit was not a hard fork; it was a soft fork.
So, I can at least take comfort that NIST somewhat agrees with me, but for the wrong reasons.
But, just as I was sad and confused at being somewhat on the same side of an argument as a wretched agency of the USSA, George Soros came in to save the day showing me that I am on the right side of the debate on bitcoin in general.
In Davos this week, the demon controlled meat suit that goes by the name of George posited that bitcoin props up dictators!
What, he doesn’t like the competition?
Soros went on to say that bitcoin is also used for “tax evasion”.
Good! F#@K your global extortion and enslavement system George. And F#@K you too NIST.
I feel better now.
Of course They said that. It is true. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. It is time we start calling Bitcoin something else; Segwitcoin, Blockstreamcoin, Lightning tokens, make your pick.
Probably for the best. BCH is far more centralized and with hidden motives under the surface than Bitcoin, and the fact that a government entity is touting the conservation of legacy Bitcoin says a lot about what they are afraid of with the Lightning Network and what it's going to bring in the next 12-18 month cycle. some big people wearing big diapers are pinching some big loaves right now, and news like this is the evidence.
the beef between bch and btc is annoying. the market will decide anyway.
Maybe DASH will make it in the end, who knows?
yeah it's a stupid beef that has no reason to exist. BCH is a "what if" experiment to preserve legacy Bitcoin. It's like Ethereum Classic. When a small subset of developers take on the role of preserving the original coin in case the evolved coin fails, they paint themselves into a corner, and their legacy coin will always be a "backup" to preserve the chain before the evolution occurred, which means BCH can't go implementing any changes without losing it's legacy status as well.
You cannot compare ETC with Bcash. ETC has never done a hardfork, ETH did the rolback hardfork and ETC supporters simply stayed on the original chain. ETC supporters are right if they say ETC is the real ETH because it technically is.
Bcash is a hardfork off the original BTC chain without consensus (tiny minority), so people who claim BCH is the real bitcoin are technically wrong. Beside that ETC has never attempted to attack ETH and Bcash attacked BTC already several times using market manipulation, paid shills and one time even a flaw that was forked in (EDA, forked in because otherwise the fork would die on arrival because there was no consensus at all = clearly satoshi's vision LOL). Bcash only exist to attack BTC, there is no other added value in it. (LTC and Dash are way better for unchain transactions).
yeah, that's why I deliberately used the word "legacy" and not "original." ETC is not the original Ether either, as it has forked into the "every 5,000,000 blocks decreases reward by 20%" update (I can't remember the ECIP number), so in truth neither Bcash or ETC are "original" coins, they are merely running legacy code because a small group of developers want things to remain mostly the same instead of evolving into something more. They are nothing more than backups in a worst case scenario.
For those of you who missed @briggsy response, look right above this one and read it, it’s good. All the bch drama is lame, berwick and ver are the only ones constantly running their mouth about it, just ironically they have 2 of the biggest mouths. Haha.
this was using just to put hype around the BCH to make a boom in the price of BCH nothing more than that.
Makes a lot of sense for the NIST to say this. They will never be able to control BTC, but BCH could be very easy to control by spamming the network (Bcash only selling point is cheap transactions, so when the cost rise they have to increase block size again) so block sizes rise and only a few will run a full node (expensive and doesn't pay). They only have to compromise or attack these few full nodes to control / destroy Bcash. Short term Bcash could work fine, but the core devs are not stupid, they think about future treats like centralized nodes and selfish mining.
With the large blocksize it is extremely difficult to span BCH. Also "BCash" happens to be a Brazilian payment system.
Brazillion, like a brazillion times Bcash has hustled people into their product.
Bcash is not at scale so at the moment nobody is willing to spend a lot of money to spam it. Once it get really used (I wonder if this will ever be the case, Litecoin is better off chain and LN is rolling out now) big players will spam, it is relatively cheap to raise the transaction price just enough to scare away the users (remember? users came to Bcash because it is cheap and not for any other reason). A hardfork will be forced by the users, so a rich individual or government can force bigger blocks (what leads to node centralization).
Actually, users initially switched to Bitcoin Cash because of the fundamentals. Now both merchants and users are starting to see that it's a lot more reliable and easy to accept than many other cryptocurrencies, but most people still don't seem to even realize how much cheaper it is than for example Litecoin.
There's a lot of misinformation, social media spam and sock puppets both spreading propaganda and pretending to be Bitcoin Cash users in order to discredit it. There were also initial set backs when launching the fork, although they were fixed later.
-This is an informational bear market for Bitcoin Cash, combined with a general bear market in crypto right now. Still, price stays relatively stable from where it was a few months ago. It may drop much more and the market would still be fine. All of this suggests that Bitcoin Cash - as opposed to the many fake airdrops that were released just prior to and after it - is here to stay.
Perhaps I'm making a mistake, but lets see how this comment aged 1, 2 and ultimately 4 years from now.
Bitcoin Cash is a much more advanced solution that simply raising the block size and doing nothing else, even if raising it is critical.
The limit set in place by Satoshi was never meant to remain, but to be gradually increased and not stand in the way of actually scaling. It was a short term solution to solve a particular attack vector that Bitcoin would outgrow over time. Research suggests that we might not even need to keep it at all anymore, but it's definitely possible to scale past it.
It's even possible to do so without hindering people from running half functioning so called "full nodes" that don't actually generate blocks, when this was not part of Bitcoins security scheme to begin with and they really do not count as nodes at all per the design PDF because they are easy to create without as much investment risk as running an actual mining node, or even running a simple "miner" connected to a pool.
The reason this is not being done is more political than technical. At this point it makes sense to let ticker BTC do its own thing and perhaps find other clever ways of scaling. BCH can live on as its own thing. It is Bitcoin, as far as I'm concerned, even if it doesn't bare the exact same name. It has already proven many experts wrong and could continue to do so in the coming years.
The best argument I see against Satoshis scaling solution is probably that the network should not rely on mining nodes for security. But much better then would be to find a way to let regular users be simplified "miners" more easily and for such "miners" to have influence even if they connect to a pool. DPoS might be an even better solution and would also limit the "wasted" energy spent on mining, even if it could per the original design be said to contribute to security by giving block generators an initial expense.
In any case it will be interesting to see where both systems head next and also whether the exchange tickers can eventually be used as a hedging instruments against one another.
Nice article Jeff...
NIST probably has a lot of things to say, good bad or whatever. Generally I think we'll get closer to the truth by ignoring them. Thanks Jeff
The BitClub Network (which Jeff has recommended) has switched to Bitcoin Cash starting today. They are not a small player.
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@sinushacker/bitclub-network-switching-to-bitcoin-cash-februrary-1-2018
Yeah, NIST did a great job on that 911 investigation; How they think anyone believes their lies is beyond me...
I've never purchased or used BCH; but it seems like everyone wants BTC.
Newq
Actually, thanks to the bitcoin community, NIST has updated that section
"Thank you for your comments. You, along with many others, expressed concern on section 8.1.2. To help foster a full transparency approach on the editing of this section, I am sending the revised section to you for further comment.
8.1.2 Bitcoin Cash (BCH or BCC1) In 2017, Bitcoin users adopted an improvement proposal for Segregated Witness (known as SegWit, where transactions are split into two segments: transactional data, and signature data) through a soft fork. SegWit made it possible to store transactional data in a more efficient form. However, a group of users had different opinions on how Bitcoin should evolve – and developed a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain titled Bitcoin Cash. Rather than implementing the SegWit changes, the developers of Bitcoin Cash decided to increase the maximum blocksize (additionally the developers made changes to other aspects of the system, such as the difficulty adjustment algorithm). When the hard fork occurred, people had access to the same amount of coins on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
1The ticker used for Bitcoin Cash differs depending on the exchange; some use BCH, some BCC"
bcash fans must be pissssssed lol
EOS is the real bitcoin.
I can not wait to see where EOS is at by years end