Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 02:22:55 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: CANNON <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview
Precedence: list


--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) <dylan.yaga@nist.gov>
> > To: CANNON <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>
> >=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--