Latest news about Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies. Your daily crypto news habit.

The question in the title is misleading. Because what Core think, and what Core and Blockstream want you to think and believe, are two entirely separate things.
Recently Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr (aka Luke-jr) wrote an opinion piece almost entirely about âBitcoin Cashâ itself.
But before we get onto the Bitcoin Cash topic here, let me address one glaring point made by Luke early on in his piece. Given that Segwit2x is well underway now, Luke actually makes an admission â stating, and I quote âBasically, BIP148 (UASF) was an early successâ. This statement conclusively reaffirms statements I made in an earlier piece that Blockstream (UASF) and DCG ( Segwit2x) are in bed together. And Iâm going to restate this â big blockers have been played.
But Lukeâs ponderous post is genuinely a marvel in deceit. He bewilderingly states that âBitcoin Cashâ is an altcoin, and that it is an attempt to hijack Bitcoin.
This play on words is all too common within the Blockstream camp. The hijacking came from Blockstream and no one else. But to help illustrate this point, allow me to paint this picture. Suppose you are part of an open source project. You release a founding paper specifying your projectâs inner workings, methods, and overall operation. Your project is unfunded, but passionately developed within an open, transparent, thriving community. A new company emerges, and cleverly makes its way among your development team, and receives an incredibly large amount of funding from some very big players in the industry. This company then starts to weed out some of the early developers of the project, and particularly those who donât agree with the companyâs very distinct vision.
Discussion and promotion of the original founding paper is prohibited. This company then (for argument sake letâs just call it Blockstream) rewrites the project to a vision that is incompatible with its original founding paper. So then in retaliation a small group of people, some who were there in the beginning, come together, and re-launch or rather see the continuation of the original project with the original intention, following the original founding paper.
Who in the above paradigm hijacked the project? Unless you are heavily compromised, it takes no genius to figure out the answer. Blockstream took over Bitcoin, fundamentally changed its course direction, and are now actively attacking the minority who wish to retain the original vision.
Bitcoinâs community has been aggressively split for several years now. If Lukeâs heart was in the right place, he should genuinely wish Bitcoin Cash all the best, and in fact thank them for going their own way, and finally ending years of dispute. Instead he chooses to attack further.
Segregated Witness is an extreme departure from the Bitcoin described in inventor, and creator, Satoshi Nakamotoâs white paper.
Satoshi in his wisdom wrote âBitcoin can already scale much larger than [VISA] with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost.â Bitcoin was already scaleable, it didnât need Segwit. The threat âBitcoin Cashâ poses is that it can finally prove itself, with the removal of the 1MB temporary cap it will demonstrate to the world that Core devs were lying all along, and Bitcoin can scale to astronomical heights, and operate very efficiently and securely.
So now the new agenda by Core and Blockstream is to attack âBitcoin Cashâ as an altcoin, and to discredit its position as the true Bitcoin. But anyone reading Satoshiâs whitepaper and other writings will instantly recognise that âBitcoin Cashâ is indeed the coin the inventor and creator desired. But this isnât about doing it for âSatoshiâ. It is about recognising that there was nothing ever wrong with the original roadmap for Bitcoin. The derailment by Blockstream into Segwit isnât for Bitcoinâs benefit, it is actually for the benefit of Blockstream and its many investors.
Luke also stated that âthis isnât a particularly unique or even first-of-kind altcoin: âBitcoin Darkâ and âBitcoin Plusâ have tried to hijack the âBitcoinâ name previouslyâ.
Again, he mentions the term âhijackingâ. This isnât hijacking anything. If Blockstream chooses to fundamentally change the inner workings of Bitcoin, and a group of loyalists who truly believe in Bitcoinâs capability in its current form with the transaction cap removed choose to keep things as they are â why should it not be called Bitcoin? Bitcoin Cash is true Bitcoin in every sense of the word, and is 100% aligned to the whitepaper description.
Lukeâs stated âBitcoin Plusâ and âBitcoin Darkâ are both non-compliant to Bitcoinâs whitepaper, and further they did not maintain Bitcoinâs existing ledger as they were not forks of the main chain. Lukeâs inclusion of these two cryptos is intentionally misleading.
Segwit on the other hand is so much a departure from Bitcoinâs whitepaper that if you would determine altcoins on technicalities alone, Segwit would be it, hands down. Where does the white paper mention splitting witness data?
Why should a central body, such as Blockstream, have the final say as to what Bitcoin is and isnât? Bitcoin Cashâs value and status will in the end be determined by the free and open market, not by the rantings of a Core developer.
Written by Eli Afram
This post was originally published here and has been re-published with the permission of Coingeek and the author.
This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the authorâs own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.
At News.Bitcoin.com all comments containing links are automatically held up for moderation in the Disqus system. That means an editor has to take a look at the comment to approve it. This is due to the many, repetitive, spam and scam links people post under our articles. We do not censor any comment based on politics or personal opinions. So, please be patient. Your comment will be published.
The post What Do Core Think of Bitcoin Cash? appeared first on Bitcoin News.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Bitcoin Insider. Every investment and trading move involves risk - this is especially true for cryptocurrencies given their volatility. We strongly advise our readers to conduct their own research when making a decision.