The chicken or the egg? It seems that this question is more than relevant in the crypto sphere. However, the words 'chicken' and 'egg' better be replaced with 'Bitcoin' and 'Bitcoin Cash,' as the US government scientists argued.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is a non-regulatory agency of the US Department of Commerce with about $1 billion yearly budget, has issued an insertion to mechanisms abaft the first cyber coin in the world – BTC. In other words, the agency released a draft (Draft NISTIR 8202) concerning blockchain. But, as some media outlets emphasize, it took a debatable position as it named Bitcoin Cash the ‘authentic blockchain,’ whereas bitcoin itself appeared to be a ‘fork.’
The nearly 60-page paper, titled “Interagency Report: Blockchain Technology Overview,” was particularly published by NIST’s Computer Security Resource Center. In it, it is emphasized that Bitcoin Cash is the primary tech, developed by Satoshi Nakamoto.
As it is explained in the draft when Segregation Witness was initiated, it led to a hard fork. Hence, all the mining nodes and customers who did not wish to renew begun referring to the primary Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain as Bitcoin Cash (BCC).
Proving that BCC is the first tech but not the BTC, it was mentioned in the document that users got the opportunity to access the idem number of units on both sides after the execution:
“Technically, Bitcoin is a fork and Bitcoin Cash is the original blockchain. When the hard fork occurred, people had access to the same amount of coins on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.”
Interestingly, besides bitcoin-bitcoin cash relationship, the report also covers such platforms as litecoin, dash, ripple, ethereum, as well as ethereum classic.
Credible Or Not?
According to CCN, the NIST document contains several actual infelicities. First of all, the website points out that Bitcoin Cash could not have been the first one to appear as long as it came out just in August 2017 due to the hard fork.
Secondly, according to the website, the paper falsely states that Segregated Witness, which is a scaling resolve launched on the BTC network around half a year ago, was executed via a hard fork. If that were true, it would have helped SegWit-authorized software customers inconsistent with long-standing software releases. However, indeed, the solution was turned on via a soft fork. Therefore, it is consistent with bequest BTC software.
In reality, the repulsion to rendering active a hard fork on the basic blockchain without sufficient trial is one root that SegWit2x did not receive enough of backing and, finally, it was canceled by its genuine supporters. And SegWit2x, by the way, was an offered upgrade which would have enlarged BTC’s block extent to 2 megabytes in overlap with the launch of Segregated Witness.
Whether the report by the NIST has a point or not, remains to find out. Hence, the institute is going to receive the recalls from people on the paper until Friday, February 23.