Published on: 2018-02-18T16:20:13+00:00
In an email conversation between Damian Williamson and CANNON, disagreements arise regarding the implementation of SegWit changes and the increase in blocksize by Bitcoin Cash. Williamson suggests that Bitcoin Cash developers decided to increase the blocksize in addition to implementing SegWit changes, whereas CANNON points out that Bitcoin Cash has yet to implement these improvements. SegWit, a softfork, enables advanced smart contracts, micropayment networks, and increases signature security. The conversation also includes a PGP signed message.Another email conversation between Damian Williamson and an anonymous individual revolves around the method used by Bitcoin Cash developers to improve the cryptocurrency's capabilities. Williamson argues that the statement implying Bitcoin Cash chose to increase blocksize over implementing SegWit is incorrect because the developers wanted to implement other improvements as well. However, the anonymous individual counters by stating that SegWit includes features beyond scaling and Bitcoin Cash has yet to implement them. The wording used by Williamson suggests that Bitcoin Cash has implemented SegWit, which is not the case.A forwarded email sent to the bitcoin-dev mailing list discusses concerns about section 8.1.2 of the NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview. Dylan Yaga from Fed revises the section and sends it to CANNON for further comment and transparency. Section 8.1.2 covers Bitcoin Cash (BCH), which resulted from a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain. Instead of implementing SegWit changes, Bitcoin Cash developers increased the blocksize, allowing people to have access to the same amount of coins on both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. A question arises about whether transactions are more compact due to SegWit, with the answer being that they appear more compact to un-upgraded nodes but are not actually more compact.Dylan Yaga of the Federal government responds to feedback on section 8.1.2 of the NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview. Bitcoin Cash (BCH), a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain in 2017, opted for an increased blocksize instead of implementing SegWit changes. This resulted in users having access to the same amount of coins on both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. The revised section is sent for further comment to ensure transparency.The context also includes a correction to an email that was previously sent with an incorrect date. The original email titled "NIST 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview" had the wrong date in the header, which is corrected to Jan 28th. The corrected date can be verified through the email signature. The sender also sends an email with the corrected date to the NIST comments email address. The message is signed with PGP and includes a SHA512 hash. The author's identity is not mentioned.The author of the message comments on Draft NISTIR 8202 Blockchain Technology Overview, expressing their belief that the paper contains false information and is technologically invalid. Specifically, they point out errors in the section about "Bitcoin Cash (BCC)" and provide four corrections. They clarify that Bitcoin Cash uses the ticker BCH, not BCC, emphasize that SegWit was a softfork, highlight that the original bitcoin blockchain is still called Bitcoin, and note that Bitcoin Cash is a forked altcoin, not the original chain. The author hopes that their comments will contribute to improving the paper and suggests that better research could have prevented these errors.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T22:34:39.673001+00:00