From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76411EFE for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:23:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149055.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149055.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.149.55]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 997612F1 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c245.authsmtp.com (mail-c245.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.245]) by punt24.authsmtp.com. (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w0U7N06s037780; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:23:00 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w0U7MwJU009329 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:22:59 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE60C4009E; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:22:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E675E2062F; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 02:22:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 02:22:55 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: CANNON , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20180130072255.GA1095@fedora-23-dvm> References: <6d24833d-f127-04ea-d180-c69409de16a5@cannon-ciota.info> <6d92d8da-052d-f997-f441-0713acd72e85@cannon-ciota.info> <166a1118-6924-bef1-09bd-4db4d86ccb93@cannon-ciota.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <166a1118-6924-bef1-09bd-4db4d86ccb93@cannon-ciota.info> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 66a16070-058e-11e8-9f3b-9cb654bb2504 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdQIUElQaAgsB Am4bW1NeUl57WWM7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUwUNBmFG fHseUhBxdQwIcH51 YQhkWCFaWkR9dVt9 R0YBCGwHMG99YTYc Al1RJFFSdQcYLB1A alQxNiYHcQ5VPz4z GA41ejw8IwAXDgVu fklddwpICWwPGTU/ TBALHDNnIUAORyM0 KxspOxY7AksLLEQ/ LjMA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1039:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:23:12 -0000 --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:30:21AM +0000, CANNON via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 01/30/2018 01:43 AM, CANNON via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: RE: NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview > > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:25:05 +0000 > > From: Yaga, Dylan (Fed) > > To: CANNON > >=20 > > 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 sect= ion, I am sending the revised section to you for further comment.=20 > >=20 > > 8.1.2 Bitcoin Cash (BCH) > > In 2017, Bitcoin users adopted an improvement proposal for Segregated W= itness (known as SegWit, where transactions are split into two segments: tr= ansactional data, and signature data) through a soft fork. SegWit made it p= ossible to store transactional data in a more compact form while maintainin= g backwards compatibility. However, a group of users had different opinion= s on how Bitcoin should evolve and developed a hard fork of the Bitcoin bl= ockchain titled Bitcoin Cash. Rather than implementing the SegWit changes, = the developers of Bitcoin Cash decided to simply increase the blocksize. Wh= en the hard fork occurred, people had access to the same amount of coins on= Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >=20 >=20 > This is much better than the original. My question, the part where it say= s segwit makes transactions more compact, I thought that transactions are n= ot more compact but rather they just take advantage of extra blockspace bey= ond that of 1 MB? Yes they would appear to be more compact to un-upgraded n= odes due to the witness being stripped, but the transactions are not actual= ly more compact right? That's absolutely right; this is why segwit is a blocksize increase first a= nd foremost rather than some kind of transaction size optimization. It'd be good to get that corrected as well. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAlpwHUoACgkQJIFAPaXw kfuLhAgAiiKYL7aA44sIQSY/74sPVrWT4empg74WUREfNlH9n+cztKy0SsyljBmi iTeh4wEJfEkrHWJoZKAQDgGd2ROPF6moarmAw6yShx+VAjTgg1yFUMq9ZdrY2fRb MmoylBQ0XEbYCNXeB2penYj2mP2z4KcpfG/JdR1lADTtJomv+fO46+/TR+Rk779M NRjQjWdT8ZO/FUqFl+2ZJOlWbUVM5m9x/AUbxY3IT7iB/yhpemKtVbu0h2iZbi5b 5DoGcFN7nxK+svBWnzjNe/WXKI91GUOSNz0TwT40xOOyoM8CSookIFcmTKbGS8eq 7uEAS125xtisqYIfYtP+TXtlp90mqg== =ElRZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx--