1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76411EFE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <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)
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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) <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--
|
