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 6A4A9F42 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:40:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from forward2.bravehost.com (forward2.bravehost.com [65.39.211.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D78D8108 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:40:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bravehost.com Received: from [10.137.3.35] (tor-exit1-readme.dfri.se [171.25.193.77]) (Authenticated sender: cannon@cannon-ciota.info) by forward2.bravehost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36F35B48; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 16:40:38 -0800 (PST) To: nistir8202-comments@nist.gov From: CANNON Message-ID: <6d24833d-f127-04ea-d180-c69409de16a5@cannon-ciota.info> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:40:32 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:44:00 +0000 Subject: [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: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:40:48 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 January 20 2018 (I am also forwarding this message to the bitcoin mailing list just in case there are other technological errors that could use correction in this draft paper or anything that should be added with my comments.) To the authors of this paper, I am commenting on Draft NISTIR 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview located at https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/nistir/8202/draft/documents/nistir8202-draft.pdf Just in case that document is modified or removed I have also downloaded it to redistribute this error ridden draft at a later point if neccesary, and I also had the Internet Archive save a copy here for sake of archival reasons to give context to this message. https://web.archive.org/web/20180124170359/https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/nistir/8202/draft/documents/nistir8202-draft.pdf There are a couple things I would like to contribute on regarding some corrections needed in this paper. I must say, the content in this paper is making me doubt the credibility of the NIST. I am starting to wonder if the NIST is also incompetent with lack of credibility just like with most other government institutions. Falsified information published as truth such as this only expose their ignorance and incompetence and also propagate such ignorance to other institutions and people whom rely on NIST for information or research. The information presented in this paper is technologically invalid and contains false information. I understand that mistakes happen, but this specific section regarding "8.1.2 Bitcoin Cash (BCC)" is obviously written without prior research. Even if research was done no citation is included to back these claims. I ask you to please conduct research and validate information before publishing it, especially when the credibility of the NIST is at stake. I will proceed to outline some corrections. 1. Bitcoin Cash uses the ticker BCH, BCC is the ticker for BitConnectCoin 2. "When SegWit was activated, it caused a hard fork" This is incorrect information. Segwit was not a hardfork. Rather segwit was a softfork meaning that it is backwards compatible with unupgraded nodes and miners. With it being a softfork it actually prevents a fork in the blockchain by still being valid to unupgraded nodes and miners. Because segregated witness is not a hardfork its use is optional. 3. "and all the mining nodes and users who did not want to change started calling the original Bitcoin blockchain Bitcoin Cash (BCC)" The original bitcoin blockchain is still called Bitcoin. Segwit did not create any fork in the blockchain. Bitcoin Cash however was a hard fork that resulted in a forked blockchain and new altcoin. Bitcoin is Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash. 4. "Technically, Bitcoin is a fork and Bitcoin Cash is the original blockchain." Technically, that statement is not truth. Bitcoin Cash was forked from the original Bitcoin blockchain to create the altcoin "Bitcoin Cash" (BCH) by people whom believe that the blocksize should be large enough to accomodate all individual transactions on the main chain. Without going into any of my personal opinions of which one is better (bitcoin vs. "bitcoin cash") technically Bitcoin Cash was a hardfork and is not the original chain but a forked one. It is a hardfork as the blocks generated by BCH are incompatible with BTC nodes. Because of this lack of backwards compatibility, and the resulting fork in blockchain is why BCH is technically a hardfork. This is just one section of this paper I have read thus far. It makes me wonder how many other fallacies are throughout this paper. I also wonder how many other NIST papers exist out of draft form that contain errors. Even the smallest amount of research could have prevented this in the case of this paper, unless you are intentionally pushing false information. I hope these comments are of benefit to the improvement of this paper. Cannon PGP Fingerprint: 2BB5 15CD 66E7 4E28 45DC 6494 A5A2 2879 3F06 E832 Email: cannon@cannon-ciota.info NOTICE: ALL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE NOT SIGNED/ENCRYPTED WITH PGP SHOULD BE CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY FORGED, AND NOT PRIVATE. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJabmySAAoJEAYDai9lH2mwVPcP/ika01NHFMBbxVU9OKc4Ibrd 12MpWW2sgvB14dm8NIuh/xQeFpxGjKvkwWCzqj0pSOE+WClVdK573MJcZF1hqnR4 iPNIr3noR632Hyl9V3Cst5hg5BiUmwETpsyDXG7q7Oj/bX3QAR+psjahk2H2gA6v i4m1BP4052eRymznJ8aRQc1ak23C4ylLvjC3RRfNmXozG77N4w+tQvFXq45yQam+ nh/8EIck5D9vNTOtVgzgjVqQwfDgUsxgClqHGLNiUOSSievCQLhz1WynDZZSlKmf Y1Gd70fBpHdrhLBe/SOLglZXPU2BTlicUoN/t9P+5i4qzPfNxfMW9eRi/Urd4sJX INUuEUMJ2m5EspFjv3rMT19ELts8WhGskBq/4OCT8Wlb9arzhvrDySzLdX5ij75V DhIX1r3CMDVN4HNb1V4M+Je4Wgle7oh+LS2QDjBnw3IMfjF37j+3OXiRDrlAkE30 GNg0SooANGBvMIMdjnc8fwIV/TxeNh0vEj8M2a4VjbthiDT4L1a4CzxOqT3eWbvB YHUdz+hwSnydkj5EhyC2e0XN3zqvgSNYoE8HTvKG78ik49bZpxkssEuMWC5N+KM8 j2pgzbVdJXu08mwxrgf2wylUpR630WAEXkcVg3rOw+irPl1U0VxzNL8eNFZehMe6 nuUyXL4VMlApOgesmrCI =RQoE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----