public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: CANNON <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:30:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <166a1118-6924-bef1-09bd-4db4d86ccb93@cannon-ciota.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6d92d8da-052d-f997-f441-0713acd72e85@cannon-ciota.info>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 01/30/2018 01:43 AM, CANNON via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: RE: NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:25:05 +0000
> From: Yaga, Dylan (Fed) <dylan.yaga@nist.gov>
> To: CANNON <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>
> 
> 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)
> 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 compact form while maintaining backwards compatibility.  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 simply increase the blocksize. When the hard fork occurred, people had access to the same amount of coins on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 

This is much better than the original. My question, the part where it says segwit makes transactions more compact, I thought that transactions are not more compact but rather they just take advantage of extra blockspace beyond that of 1 MB? Yes they would appear to be more compact to un-upgraded nodes due to the witness being stripped, but the transactions are not actually more compact right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=feRa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-30  3:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-29  0:40 [bitcoin-dev] NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview CANNON
2018-01-30  1:43 ` CANNON
2018-01-30  3:30   ` CANNON [this message]
2018-01-30  7:22     ` Peter Todd
     [not found]   ` <PS2P216MB0179F59241705B69BC88CFEF9DFB0@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
2018-02-06  2:08     ` CANNON
2018-02-06  7:07       ` Damian Williamson
     [not found] <cad6fbdf-b826-41e8-f8ff-c37ec72193e9@cannon-ciota.info>
2018-01-29  1:08 ` CANNON
     [not found] ` <BY1PR09MB09045CA927AB6A87BBB315D9E4E50@BY1PR09MB0904.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
2018-02-18 16:20   ` CANNON

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=166a1118-6924-bef1-09bd-4db4d86ccb93@cannon-ciota.info \
    --to=cannon@cannon-ciota.info \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox