巴比特论坛

发表于 2016-11-15 19:01:11 | 显示全部楼层
活动类型:
AMA
开始时间:
2016-11-19 08:00 至 2016-11-19 10:00 商定
活动地点:
第24期
性别:
不限
已报名人数:
0

本期AMA我们邀请了Bitcoin Unlimited的三位开发者:

peter.png
Dr. Peter Rizun

Peter R. Rizun is a physicist and entrepreneur living in Vancouver, Canada, and is co-founder and co-managing editor for Ledger. His main research interest is developing analytical theory that explains properties and emergent phenomenon of the Bitcoin Network. He has written two papers related to Bitcoin that received significant interest, “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without A Block Size Limit” and “Reduce Orphaning Risk and Improve Zero Confirmation Security With Subchains”, and gave a talk on block space as an economic commodity at the Scaling Bitcoin conference in Montreal. He was the recipient of the $105,000 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) CGS Doctoral Award and was recognized as a “Leader of Tomorrow” by the Alberta Science and Technology Foundation (ASTech). He holds a B.A.S

Peter R. Rizun是一位物理学家和企业家,生活在加拿大温哥华,是Ledger的联合创始人。他的主要研究兴趣是发展分析理论,解释比特币网络的属性和出现现象。他撰写了两篇关于比特币的文章,“交易费市场存在没有块大小限制”和“降低孤儿风险和提高子链上的零确认安全性”。他获得了$ 105,000自然科学和工程研究理事会(NSERC)CGS博士学位奖,并被阿尔伯塔科技基金会(ASTech)公认为“明天的领导者”。



sui.png
Andrea Suisani(sickpig)

A software developer for almost twenty years, recently transitioned to what they use to call a full-stack software developer. That means doing 4 jobs while being payed only for one. On the bright side such a role gives opportunity to improve skills through a lot of IT fields like database system administration, system administration, coding and project management. Holding a Bachelor degree in statistics, and getting into Bitcoin in 2011, Andrea briefly pool mined with a Radeon GPU, and hasn't looked back since.

Andrea 是一位有近二十年经验的软件开发人员,最近转换为全栈软件开发。他拥有统计学学位,2011年接触比特币,那时开始用Radeon GPU挖矿。


stone.png
Andrew Stone

Andrew Stone is the developer of Bitcoin Unlimited, has been an investor in Bitcoin since early 2012 and is currently the Software Architect at OpenClovis, Inc, a company that provides clustering and high availability software to telecom, aerospace and defense equipment manufacturers.

Andrew Stone是Bitcoin Unlimited的开发人员,自2012年初以来一直是Bitcoin的投资者,目前是OpenClovis公司的软件架构师,该公司为电信,航空航天和国防设备制造商提供集群和高可用性软件。


bu.png
关于Bitcoin Unlimited:

Bitcoin Unlimited,顾名思义,去除区块大小限制,让市场决定区块大小。
Bitcoin Unlimited获得了ViaBTC和Bitcoin.com的支持,并获得了50万美金的赞助。

http://www.8btc.com/tan90d107 这篇文章介绍了前不久Bitcoin Unlimited 在微信群里的AMA;

http://www.8btc.com/bitcoin-unlimited-proposed-presentation 在这篇文章中,提到了这几位开发者,以及其提案简单介绍;

http://8btc.com/search.php?mod=f ... w=Bitcoin+Unlimited 这里有一些关于Bitcoin Unlimited的社区讨论。


关于BU,你可能会关心:

BU是怎么解决区块大小问题的?
与其他方案有什么具体的不同?
BU开发者对隔离见证有什么看法?
……

Anyway,任何关于BU的问题,欢迎提出,开发者们会在这次宝贵的交流机会中,尽其所能解答。
活动时间是本月19日,8:00-10:00。对,你没看错,是周六一大早。所以,请尽早提出你的问题,以免错过活动时间。

提醒一点,请文明讨论,杜绝人身攻击,恶意灌水等不当言论~~~


感谢三位位于不同时区的开发者抽出时间解答问题,以及jake 卢睿、闪电、pc、Mike、Vatten、lwvwlcn等译者的鼎力支持和辛苦付出。


巴比特资讯记者。寻求报道请联系meng@8btc.com。
您需要登录后才可以发帖 登录 | 立即注册 | 用新浪微博登录

最新最热
2061628027 2016-11-15 20:00:19
准备好问题,来回答。
回复 收起
2016-11-17 15:53:23 江卓尔回复wwkmtg : 本帖最后由 江卓尔 于 2016-11-17 15:56 编辑

这不是无限区块,是让51%以上矿池决定区块大小,
这里面隐含了一个假设:不会有51%的算力对比特币有恶意攻击。

这个方向是对的,让专业的人(打包区块的矿池)决定多大的区块是合适。
扩容之争已经让社区元气大伤了,应该一劳永逸地解决这个议题,而不是等2M满,8M满时再来撕逼一次

实际上,矿池愿意打包的区块大小,远小于网络能承受的区块大小,
过大的区块,会导致矿池的孤立率上升,进而导致矿池亏损。

wwkmtg | 来自手机版 显示全部楼层
2016-11-15 20:39:35 来自手机版wwkmtg: 不太认可无限区块,不过我支持真正的比特币开发者开发自己的理想!
小白updata | 来自手机版 显示全部楼层
2016-11-15 20:28:09 来自手机版小白updata: 你变船长了
收起
玛_雅 2016-11-15 21:18:53
您们好,我主要有三个问题:
1、为何不设高算力激活门槛,以降低币圈分裂?一般激活门槛越高,分裂风险越低越安全。XT和Classic是75%激活,SW是95%激活,而BU目前好像是没有设明确地激活门槛,那么在极端的情况下,有仅仅50%就激活的可能性?为何不设个高激活门槛来双重保险呢?若觉得代码难实现可以去fork版本Classic的激活门槛代码,将75%修改到90%以上。

2、如何避免未来可能出现的超大区块风险?BU是浮动地矿工决定上限,有点近似于取消上限的。未来用户若爆增,是有可能出现超大区块而提升全节点运行门槛,而影响节点去中心化的。是否可考虑设一个区块投票的上限呢?比如32MB,用户只能在1MB到32MB之间投票,从而避免超大区块,将来32MB还不够用时,若那时的硬件允许可以再次硬扩。

3、你们对由我们中文社区提出的“融合合成分叉”方案怎么看?就是说分两阶段先软分叉再硬分叉。未来BU方案是否可以接纳采用Fusion融合合成分叉来进行安全地分叉升级。谢谢!http://8btc.com/thread-41336-1-1.html



回复 收起
2016-11-19 09:33:33 Dr.Peter_Rizun: Here are two of the papers Andrew Stone was referring to:
下面是Andrew Stone引用过的两篇论文:

Rizun, P. R. “A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit.” (2015) https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf

Stone, G. A. “An Examination of Bitcoin Network Throughput Via Analysis of Single Transaction Blocks.” (2015) http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn

The only thing I'd like to add to Andrew's response is to point out that "common nodes" still have significant power to limit the size of blocks using Bitcoin Unlimited.  Common nodes express their preferences in the user-agent string, allowing us to build charts like the (fictional) one shown below.  Although this is not Sybil-proof, we suspect it will be fairly obvious what the "nodes are willing to accept" in terms of block sizes.  Rational miners will not build larger blocks than this, because they would risk losing their users!
我唯一要给Andrew的回应补充的是,“公共节点”仍然有很大的力量来限制使用Bitcoin Unlimited块的大小。 公共节点在用户代理字符串中表达自己的偏好,允许我们构建如下图所示的图表(虚构)。 虽然这不是Sybil-proof,我们怀疑在块大小方面“节点愿意接受”是相当明显的。 理性的矿工不会构建比这更大的块,因为他们可能会失去他们的用户
1.png


2016-11-19 09:01:11 Andrew_Stone: 3.If I understand the synthetic fork technique properly, it forces people onto my block size choice similar to how SegWit soft fork if forcing users onto SegWit.  I personally think that this is unnecessary, but a clever idea.  Natural forces will cause the large block fork to win, because the 1MB block limit has no value given today’s network and storage capabilities.  In a future fork, if a single fork does not win it will be because there are 2 mutually-exclusive economic functions that each fork serves.  This means that like evolution (speciation), we will have 2 coins that fulfill different roles and whose combined market cap -- your combined holdings, since your coins were duplicated on both forks -- is worth more than just one.  This outcome is better (for bitcoin holders) than an alt-coin filling that economic demand.  
按照我对合成分叉的理解,它会强制用户选择我的区块大小,这跟SegWit软分叉强制用户使用SW类似。我个人认为这没必要,而且也不是好方法。顺应目前的趋势,更大的区块一定是大势所趋,因为1MB的区块大小对于目前的网络和存储能力来说没有价值。未来,某一个单一分叉无法胜出是因为分叉背后是两个互相排斥的经济体系。这就意味着就像进化一样那时候我们会有两种币,他们扮演不同的角色,而他们加起来的市场总额——因为你的币两条分叉上有重合——就会比一个有价值。这个结果对比特币持有者来说好过通过一种山寨币来满足这个经济需求。
2016-11-19 08:54:11 Andrew_Stone: 2.No one can set a limit today using any client.  They can pretend to, but the “limit” in Core is in an important sense imaginary.   If the mining and economic majority modified the code (its an easy change) to produce large blocks, how would my putting a limit in Core or BU stop them from producing these blocks?  As a user, would you stay on the minority chain or would you move to one most everyone else is using?  So the idea that Core can even set a limit is just a effect of the fact that Bitcoin is still young and has only 1 major client.  That is changing.  
目前还没有人可以使用任何客户端设置上限。 他们可以假装,但Core中的“上限”只是在人们想象中有重要的意义。 如果采矿和使用者的大多数修改代码(这个很容易改变)以产生大块,我们在Core或BU中的上限又如何能够阻止他们生产这些块呢? 作为一个用户,你会留在少数链,还是会转移到一个最大的多数人使用的? 因此,Core可以设置一个上限的想法只是表明一个事实,即比特币还年轻,并且只有1个主要开发团队。 这种情况正在改变。

Let’s say that a group of client software developers get together and agree on a limit.  Let’s call them A, B, and C and let’s say that A is the most popular client.  Now a bug in A causes it to exceed the limit, so B and C fork onto a minority chain until an emergency patch can be released.  Who is at fault?  It doesn’t matter.  The users and miners of B and C are the ones who will bear the cost.  But the Bitcoin Unlimited client cannot not be client B or C -- it will follow the mining majority.
假如说一组客户端软件开发人员聚在一起,就一个容量上限达成一致。 让我们称它们为A,B和C,让我们说A是最受欢迎的客户端。 现在A中的一个错误导致它超过容量上限,因此B和C分叉到少数链上,直到可以释放紧急补丁。 这是谁的错? 没关系, B和C的用户和矿工是承担成本的人。 但Bitcoin Unlimited客户端不是客户端B或C - 它将遵循采矿多数链原则。

“How to avoid the risk of huge sized blocks in future?”
“如何避免未来巨大区块的风险?”
How can I decide now what a “huge” block is in the future?  Let let the future “us” set the block generation and propagation sizes.  We do not have the ability or responsibility to solve this for the future.  Do you think that a group of users will cheat another group?  I think that users will act to maximize Bitcoin’s value since that maximize their holding’s value.  And remember that the miner’s internet is our internet -- to generate large (paying) blocks, our transactions need to get to them.  So miner’s block size is inherently limited by the physical network we are all running on.  We have written formal papers on these ideas…
现在的我怎么能定义什么是未来“巨大的”块? 让未来的“我们”设置块大小的生成和传播。 我们没有能力或责任为未来解决这个问题。 你认为一群用户会欺骗另一个群体吗? 我认为用户将采取行动,以最大化比特币的价值,从而最大化他们的持有价值。 记住,矿工的互联网就是我们的互联网 - 生成大(支付)块,我们的交易需要他们。 所以矿工的块大小固有地受我们正在运行的物理网络的限制。 就这些想法,我们已经写了正式的论文。。。
2016-11-19 08:23:45 Andrew_Stone: 1.The fundamental design of bitcoin is based on what we call Nakamoto Consensus which is the only known solution that sidesteps the FLP (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm85.pdf).  Algorithms that create “activation thresholds” etc, are provably faulty due to the FLP result.  For example, a majority of miners could deliberately signal activation but not actually fork.  This trick benefits the dishonest miners to a small degree, and would cause the honest minority fork miners a long outage as they fell back to a version of Bitcoin that remained on the original chain.
比特币的基本设计是基于我们所谓的中本共识,这是唯一已知的避免FLP的解决方案(http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm85.pdf). 创建“激活阈值”的算法由于FLP结果而被证明可能是错误的。例如,大多数矿工可能有意地激活,但实际上他们不会在分叉链挖矿。 这个技巧在一个小程度上有利于不诚实的矿工,将导致诚实的少数分叉矿工长时间停机,直到他们回到原链版本的比特币。

The Bitcoin Unlimited emergent consensus model is built directly on top of Nakamoto Consensus so does not suffer from these problems.  It tracks the majority chain.  For example, in the above situation the miner would likey remain on the majority chain.  In the worst case, he might briefly mine on the minority chain before switching back.

比特币无限紧急共识模型直接建立在中本聪共识之上,所以不会遇到这些问题。 它跟踪多数链。 例如,在上述情况下,矿工将保持在多数链上。 在最坏的情况下,他可能在切换回之前在少数链上简单地挖矿。

This is why Bitcoin Unlimited does not have an activation threshold defined by developers.  But, using Bitcoin Unlimited, the miner controls the “acceptance” block size separately from the “generation” block so.  So if miners would like to begin signaling the acceptance of large blocks but agree to not generate large blocks until acceptance is 66, 75 or 95% then they are welcome to do so.
这就是为什么Bitcoin Unlimited没有开发人员定义的激活阈值。 但是,使用Bitcoin Unlimited时候,矿工分开控制“接受”块与“生成”块大小。 因此,如果矿工希望开始表示接受大块,但同意直到接受阈值是66,75或95%之前不生成大块,那么他们是可以这样做的。

RE: 【AMA】Bitcoin Unlimited来了,欢迎来问!

2016-11-16 06:36:25 vatten: 我把玛雅的问题翻成英文

Hello, I have mainly 3 questions:

1. Why not raise the activation threshold in order to avoid a split of the community? Generally, the higher the threshold, the less risk for split and it becomes safer. XT and Classic is 75% activation, Segwit is 95%, and BU seems not having any clear activation threshold yet. So in an extreme situation, is there a possibility of activation by 50% of hash power? Why don't set a high activation threshold to make is much safer? If it is difficult to implement, you can fork the classic version and change that 75% to > 90%

2. How to avoid the risk of huge sized blocks in future? BU uses a floting limit decided by miners, a bit close to removing the limit. If in future the amount of user increases dramatically, it might generate huge blocks thus increase the cost to operating full nodes, and further affect the decentralization of the nodes. Is it possible to set a limit? For example 32MB, users can only vote between 1MB and 32MB, to avoid huge blocks. In future when 32MB is not enough, if the hardware allow, you can hard fork and extend that limit

3. What is your opinion of a solution originated from chinese community: "Synthetic Fork"? E.g. first do a soft fork (to unite hash power) then (immediately) followed by a hard fork. Is it possible for BU to use Synthetic Fork to upgrade the network safely? Thanks http://8btc.com/thread-41336-1-1.html
收起
后排低沉的声音 2016-11-15 22:07:44
请问,51%就可以硬分叉的BU方案,在逻辑上跟发动51%攻击有什么区别?  还是说这就是冠冕堂皇的51%攻击?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 10:24:11 Dr.Peter_Rizun回复Andrew_Stone : 补充上面的发言:
Adding on what Andrew said above, let's further assume that coins on the small block fork with 25% of the hash rate are worth only 1/4 as much as coins on the big block chain.  Before the difficulty adjusts, it will cost the same amount of money to mine 12.5 BTC on the small block chain as it would to miner 12.5 BTC on the large block chain.  But the 12.5 BTC on the small block chain are worth a lot less!  So the small-block miners lose money each new block they mine on the small block chain (because for every block on the small-block chain they find, they could have found a block on the large block chain).  What's worse, is that coins are "immature" for 100 blocks, so by the time the miner's coins on the small block chain can be sold, they might be worth even less (or the chain might be dead, in which case the coins would be worthless). In other words, miners do not want to mine on the minority chain if they care about making money! 、

补充Andrew上面的发言。   我们进一步假设拥有25%算力的支链只有大算力支链的1/4市值。在难度调整前,它在小算力支链上挖矿,每块奖励12.5比特币,在大算力支链上挖矿也是12.5比特币的奖励,但是小算力支链上的币价值是比较低的。所以说,在小算力支链上每挖出一个区块,就会造成损失(因为在小算力支链上挖出一块的算力同样可以在大算力支链上挖出一块)。还有更糟糕的,这些币没有达到100区块确认的“成熟度”,伴随着小支链的币相继被买,他们的价值越来越低(或者这个支链可能会死去,这个支链的币就没有价值了)
(我来帮你译最后一句)换言之,如果矿工想赚钱,那他就不会在小分支链上继续挖矿。
I'd estimate that the cost of keeping the "small block chain" alive until the difficulty re-target is about $10 million.  In order for the minority chain not to die, miners would have to be willing to lose millions of dollars!
我估计“小区块区块链”要存活下去,并且熬到难度调整需要花费1000万美元的成本。为了让小分支链活下去,矿工将不得不数以百万计美元。
2016-11-19 10:17:27 Andrew_Stone回复少年维特 : 回复少年维特的补充问题:
BU will only fork with a majority of the hash power so we will not be on the minority fork.  A minority 1MB fork has many problems, so I doubt that it will survive for long.  I have discussed some of this above (basically the large block fork outcompetes the 1MB fork in all respects).
BU只有在拥有绝对优势算力的情况下才会进行分叉,只有这样我们才不会落得像BitcoinXT的下场。拥有劣势算力的1MB分叉会有诸多问题,我甚至怀疑它能活多久。就这一点我已经讨论过了(总结一下就是无论从哪个角度来看,更大区块的分叉都会比1MB分叉更有优势)  

Here are some other thoughts: Let’s say that the small block fork has 25% of the hash power.  In that case blocks start arriving on average once every 40 minutes, rather than once every 10 minutes.  Since the block size cannot be expanded, this causes a huge backlog of transactions.  This drives transaction fees up, but this cannot solve the backlog by increasing transaction space supply as normal supply/demand economics would dictate.  So users get angry, and the excess transactions will need to go somewhere else.  Like to the large block fork.  As # of transactions grow on the large block fork, its value increases.  This causes more miners to switch, further increasing the time between blocks on the small block fork.
其他的一些想法:比方说小区块的分叉拥有25%的算力。这种情况下这个分叉会每个40分钟生成一个区块,而不是每十分钟。因为小区块分叉的区块大小不能够增加,这会积压很多交易待打包。这会使交易费用直线上升,但这又并不能通过增加容纳交易的空间来解决交易积压的问题(简单的需求/供给决定了)。于是用户生气了,那些不能及时被打包的交易需要寻找其他媒介,比方说大区块分叉。随着大区块分叉上的交易数量增加,这条分叉的价值也随之增加。这又会导致矿工们切换到大分叉区块,这样小区块分叉上的出块时间又会相应增加。

In english we call this a “vicious circle” or a “downward spiral”.
在英文里我们管这叫”vicious circle”(恶性循环),或者”downward spiral”(螺旋式下降通道)

The Core developers actually were worried about this case during the block reward halving this summer.  They were worried that the halving would cause miners to shut off their machines, causing a transaction jam, which would cause a price crash, which would cause more miners to shut off their machines.  On the bitcoin-dev mailing list, preparing an emergency hard fork to reduce the difficulty was planned.
Core开发者实际上是非常担心这个夏天发生的区块奖励减半事件的。他们担心矿工会因为这次减产儿关停矿机,造成网络交易堵塞,从而导致价格断崖式下跌,然后导致更多矿工关停矿机,如此恶性循环。。。在bitcoin-dev邮件列表上,他们实际上已经准备好了紧急赢分叉方案来临时调整难度。

But there is a simple way out of this “downward spiral”.  Just have larger blocks.  In that case, if block confirmation times are 20 or 40 minutes, blocks can be twice or four times as large.  Confirmation times are slower, but all transactions ARE confirmed.  The downward spiral is broken.  The fact that larger, BU style blocks are a simple solution to this problem should indicate to you that the solution is in many ways better.  There is no need for human devs to constantly be herding the blockchain back into a healthy state.
但其实有一个简单的方法来跳出这个“恶性循环”:采用更大的区块大小。在这种情况下,如果区块确认时间在20分钟或40分钟,那么区块大小可以是两倍或者四倍。这样的话,区块确认时间会更短,而且所有的交易都会被确认,交易不会被积压。恶性循环被打破。事实上,BU风格的大区块是一个简单解决方案,而且是从各个角度来看都是一个更好的解决方案。从来就不需要有监护人来时时刻刻维护区块链的健康状况。
2016-11-19 09:36:03 Dr.Peter_Rizun: No.  51% attacks can be thought of as malicious soft forks: the attackers add new rules (e.g., “all blocks must be empty”).  A hard-forking change is the opposite: it removes an existing rule (e.g., “blocks between 1 MB and 8 MB are now allowed [but before they were not]).
不。51%攻击可以被理解为恶意的软分叉:攻击者添加新规则(例如:“所有区块必须为空块”)。硬分叉的改变则是相反的:硬分叉移除现有规则(例如:“区块可以在1MB和8MB之间【但在硬分叉之前是不允许的】”)

2.png

Soft forks exist on a spectrum:软分叉可分为
Unambiguously malicious(“51% attacks”):明确地恶意(“51%攻击”)
controversial protocol changes:有争议的协议变化
Completely non-controversial/clear improvements:完全无争论/明确的改进。
2016-11-19 08:49:40 少年维特回复Andrea_Suisani : BTCC已经支持隔离验证,如果现在搞硬分叉,比特币必然分为两条链。你们愿意看到比特币分成BTC和BTC Classic吗?
2016-11-19 08:45:51 Andrea_Suisani: Technically there’s no activation threshold. A part of the network could decide to fork at any given X% of the hashrate and Y% of the active full nodes. That said usually the work attack is used when someone is trying to leverage an significant amount of hashrate to do something nasty, be a selfish ming attack (>=33%), a double spending attack or rewriting txs history or censor transaction/blocks (>=51%).  


从技术上讲,是不存在激活阈值这个概念。网络的一部分在任意给定的算力比例,比如X%,和任意给定的完整节点数占比,比如Y%,都是可以自行决定是否发起分叉。而所谓的网络攻击通常意义讲是指有人试图使用算力优势做坏事,比如私藏挖矿(>=33%),双花攻击和重写tx历史交易或删除历史交易/区块(>=51%)。




I see hard forks more as a protocol upgrade tool rather than attack. In an hard fork at least the participant as a say, in fact if you don’t agree you won’t upgrade and you’ll remain on the “original” branch of the fork (e.g. ethereum classic). In the case of a sof fork instead a full node belonging to the system has no way to express is contrariety to the change deployed a part from leaving the system entirely.  
硬分叉是一种协议升级工具,而不是一种网络攻击。对于一个硬分叉的参与者来说,如果你不同意,不进行升级,你将继续留在“原来”的分支上(例如:ETC)。而软分叉的情形则是一个系统内的完整节点是没有表达反对改变部署的渠道,并且无法从完整系统中脱离。
2016-11-19 08:39:37 Andrew_Stone: Note that in today’s network, the abilities that the 51% attacker has is quite limited.  This is what is awesome about Bitcoin.  A 51% attacker can stop you from spending your own coins.  But they cannot spend (steal) your coins.  But this is not true for SegWit transactions after the SegWit fork, due to the way the transaction is split between the current block and the extension block.  So If 51% of the miners choose to revert back to the non-segwit code, they can take all of the money spent in SegWit transactions.  This is a large change in Bitcoin’s security model.

在现在的网络中,51%攻击者可以做的事是非常有限的。这也是比特币为什么这么棒的原因。一个51%攻击者可以阻止你花费自己的币,但他们无法花费(偷)你的币。但在隔离见证软分叉后,隔离见证格式下的交易则不是这样,因为交易的格式被分割成了后分别存在目前的区块和一个扩展区块。所以如果一个发起51%攻击的矿工选择退回到非隔离见证代码上进行挖矿,他是可以拿走所有的隔离见证格式的交易。这是对比特币的安全模型的一个巨大修改。
2016-11-17 15:58:52 江卓尔: 这不是51%的问题,哪怕1台矿机都可以建立分支,
BU最终的激活,会在75%以上算力支持,没有分叉危险的情况下才会实施。
收起
zzgm720 2016-11-16 10:21:53
请介绍一下全节点和矿工是为其想要的区块大小投票的具体实现过程,也就是当交易量达到区块上限时,是怎么样解决区块大小问题的?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 09:03:41 Andrew_Stone: Miners and nodes signal the largest block that they will accept instantly.  This information is in each block generated and in the client version string.  Other miners can look at these values and choose what size block to generate.  If there are lots of transactions pending, miners can therefore safely raise their block size.  
If you are a miner or user signaling a block size that is much smaller than the majority of the network, a block might come in that’s bigger than you will accept instantly.  But after a few blocks (the exact # if configurable) is built on top of this larger block, your client will accept this chain, provided it’s the longest).  So as a miner, if you aren’t paying any attention, you might waste a few minutes of mining power worst case.  This outcome is much better than wasting a day or more of hash power because your client has been mining on a 1MB fork and the rest of the network has moved to 2MB and you didn’t notice.
矿工和节点发出自己接受最大区块体积的信号,这个信号信息包含在每个投票的区块中和版本号中。其它矿工可以参考这些参数,选择自己接受的区块体积。因此,如果等待确认的交易过多,矿工就可以提高他们的区块体积设定。
如果你是个矿工或用户,投票的区块体积过小,网络多数投票支持的区块较大,那么最终的区块就是那个较大的,你可能暂时不会接受这个较大的区块。但是在大区块之上挖出几个区块后(这个数字是可以配置的),你的客户端就将接受这个链,认可它是最长链。因此,作为一个矿工,如果你没有留心,可能会浪费几分钟的算力。这样的结果比你浪费几天的算力要好的多,因为你的客户端还在1MB上挖矿,而网络中的大多数已经转移到2MB,而你并没有留意。
收起
000092 2016-11-16 10:47:19
请问如何评价“有车的人付费上高速,骑自行车就走免费小路好了”这句话?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 09:39:37 Dr.Peter_Rizun: 补充一个图片: 3.png


2016-11-19 09:38:51 Dr.Peter_Rizun: It should not be up to the developers to decide what should or should not go "on chain."  The developers should get out of the way and allow the free market to function properly.  If the free market converges upon fees that are a fraction of a penny per transaction, then people will use Bitcoin for small causual transactions.  If the free market converges on fees that are several dollars per transactions, then obviously people will only use bitcoin for higher-value settlements.  The point is that we don't yet know what the answer is.  Letting on-chain freely compete with off-chain is the best way to find out.  

程序员不该决定哪笔交易应该走链上,自由市场来决定。如果市场决定只要几分钱就可以做一笔交易,那么人们会选择用比特币做小的随意交易。如果市场决定交易费用高达几美元,那么人们会用其做大额转账。关键在于没人知道答案。让链上和链下方案自由竞争是最好的

Personally, my hunch is that fees will fall to under a penny per transaction under Bitcoin Unlimited and given Peter Tschipper's excellent work improving block propagation with Xtreme Thin Blocks.  This would make Bitcoin useful once again for small casual online payments like it was a few years ago.  

我的感觉是在unlimited的大规模使用下,加上瘦区块的广播速度提升,费用会达到大概1毛钱以下。这将使比特币在未来几年可以用于小额交易

I think Satoshi would agree too.  In the first paragraph of the white paper he points out how small transactions are not possible with conventional payments, implying that with Bitcoin they would be possible:

我认为中本聪也会同意。白皮书的第一段里指出了现有金融系统如何无法处理小额交易,也就意味着比特币使得小额交易成为可能
2016-11-19 08:51:36 Andrea_Suisani: I personally thing that 2nd layer solutions is something worth pursuing. That said I also think that this doesn’t mean that we have to cripple the bitcoin network throughput while waiting for LN, Sidechains and the like to be ready.

我个人认为第二层解决方案是值得研究的。我同时认为这并不代表着我们应该在等待如闪电网络和侧链的同时限制主链流量

Regardelss both the inventors of saidchains and LN explicitly state that such solutions need a block size increase and one that is bigger of the ~1.7 MB brought by SegWit once all the network will start using segwit transactions.

尽管如此,侧链和LN的发明者也说他们的方案需要主链扩容,比隔离见证在理想情况下能实现的1.7MB扩容要大

In the series of article we have published on medium about Xthin we have shown how the current p2p network could support an order of magnitude bigger blocks without the need of upgrading full nodes hardware, once we agreed on that I see no point to cripple the net a 3 tx/s when we can achieve at least 30 without problem.

我们在MEDIUM上发布的瘦区块方案表明目前的网络硬件基础无需升级即可支持起码大一个数量级的区块,只要我们对此达成一致意见,我不认为有必要在你能处理30笔每秒时限容在3笔每秒

Then I won’t and I can’t decide which transaction could be stored in the “holy” blockchain, I’d prefer to leave this role to the free market (n.b. I say “free” not “fee”).  

限容的话我就无法决定我的哪笔交易可以被发到神圣的区块链上,这个应该由自由市场来决定
收起
XRP 2016-11-16 11:16:03
想要了解bitcoin unlimited的话,有哪些网站?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 09:09:48 Andrea_Suisani: https://bitcoinunlimited.info/articles - BU Articles of Federation
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources - BU supporting documents
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP is a collection of al the Bitcoin Unlimited Improvement Proposal submitted so far
https://bitco.in/forum it is the the official BU forum
https://reddit.com/r/bitcoin_unlimited/
https://reddit.com/r/btc

收起
少年维特 2016-11-16 11:18:14
如果要用BU,比特币必然要硬分叉,你们觉得比特币能为了区块扩容而硬分叉吗?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 09:57:08 Andrew_Stone: It is not necessary, but it is the best way.  Soft fork proposals create what we call “technical debt”.  Technical debt is a concept that basically recognises that when implementing any feature there are easy and understandable ways, and complex and confusing ways.  The “technical debt” is the effect the difference between the two ways has on the system over the years.  It affects developer productivity dramatically, developer interest (nobody likes working on confusing and ugly code), increases bug incidence and severity, and harms user productivity as they work around bugs and wait for new features that take longer to develop.

硬分叉并不是必要的,但是最好的方式。软分叉产生了我们所称的技术负债。技术负债的概念用于描述改变是简单和易于理解还是复杂和令人迷惑。技术负债是这两种变化对于系统冲击在几年内所产生的影响。它剧烈的影响开发者的效率,开发者的兴趣(没人愿意去搞复杂和难以理解的代码),增加出现漏洞的风险,使得用户必须长期等待修复漏洞和更加缓慢的开发

It is better to avoid this technical debt by scaling in simple manner, using the same transaction format we have today.  Eventually, it will make sense to do another hard fork to implement a lot of transaction features and cleanups.  SegWit also implements some of these transaction features and cleanups.  However, it does so in a way that increases “technical debt” because it attempts to extend the current transaction format, rather then replace it.

因此最好用一种简单的方式扩容以减少技术负债,只需简单使用目前的交易格式即可。最终,可以通过另一个硬分叉来实现许多的新功能。SegWit同样也有这些改进,但它使用的软分叉方式大大的增加了技术负债,因为它扩展了目前的交易格式,而非改进

2016-11-19 09:41:15 Dr.Peter_Rizun: As a community we have become sloppy with our language. Indeed, allowing blocks larger than 1MB would be a hard-forking change, but that does NOT mean that the blockchain will necessarily fork.  In fact, I find it extremely unlikely that we'll see any sort of sustained fork. The reason is that finding a new block on the minority "small block" chain would be just as difficult as finding a block on the majority "large block" chain until the difficult reset occurs.  This will be very different than what happened with Ethereum where finding blocks on the minority chain quickly became much easier, allowing "Ethereum Classic" miners to survive.  But even still, Ethereum Classic has less than 10% the market cap of the real Ethereum.  The incentive to follow a single chain will be so much stronger in Bitcoin due to its longer difficult retarget period that all minority chains will naturally die.

作为一个社区而言我们的语言已经变得模糊不清。确实,扩容是一个硬分叉,但并不意味着区块链会分裂。事实上我认为这是极不可能观察到持续存在的区块链分裂。原因是在小算力区块链上挖到一个块会非常的慢。这和以太不同,它具有快速调整的难度。而且即使以太区块链分裂了,ETC仍然只有不到ETH的10%的市值。对比特币而言矿工的兴趣会更加集中在主链上而非一个难度调整极为缓慢的少数算力链
2016-11-19 09:11:08 Andrea_Suisani: If you are a node operator and tomorrow you switch from Core to BU that won’t mean that there will be an hardfork. Fore example you could run a BU node with settings that will emulate the exact behaviour of Core node, i.e. EB = 1 and AD= 99999. To have an hard fork an consensus has to emerge in a part of the network. The emergent consensus has to come then from full nodes operators, miners, merchants, exchanges and holders.
如果你是一个节点并且准备明天从Core转移到BU,这并不意味着就会硬分叉。举例来说,你可以运行和Core参数一样的BU节点,比如这样设定 EB=1 AD=99999.硬分叉必须要一定程度的网络参与者共识,这样的共识来自全节点运营者、矿工、商户、交易所和持币者。

That said technically speaking hard fork is not the only way to upgrade the protocol to increase network throughput, in fact SegWit is an update to the protocol coded as a soft fork. I do think though that hard forks are a more linear and clear way to perform the kind of changes BU propose to the protocol.  
技术上来说,硬分叉并不是唯一能升级网络性能的办法,实际上SegWit就是一个软分叉升级。但我认为硬分叉是一个更加清晰和线性的实现BU想要实现的协议变化的方式

2016-11-16 12:38:30 少年维特回复zzgm720 : 为了区块扩容而硬分叉 就相当于 为了洗个脸脱光衣服
2016-11-16 11:58:54 zzgm720: 一个人能为了洗澡脱衣服吗?
收起
jb9802 2016-11-16 13:52:24
本帖最后由 jb9802 于 2016-11-16 13:55 编辑

1、有人但心运行BU程序后,会出现超大区块攻击,你们认为会出现超大区块吗,如果会BU是用什么技术来对应这样的攻击?

2、很多人(包括我)反对Core开发团队的一个理由,就是Core的高傲独行从不听社区的意见,只按他们自己的计划来做事,比特币变成了他们的一个玩具,如果比特币开发转到BU开发团队,BU团队会不会也会变的高傲独行,BU团队通过什么办法来避免这种情况出现?

3、问一个主观的问题,你们认为Core团队是不是被BlockStream公司所控制?

4、如果BU胜出,BU有没有计划来实现隔离见证、闪电网络或侧?

5、隐私性一直是比持币的弱项,BU有没有计划增强比特币的隐私性?




回复 收起
2016-11-19 10:28:46 Andrea_Suisani: 4.if Bitcoin wins (:P) we for sure are going to find a solution for transaction malleability be it SegWit, Flexible Transacation, a modified version of Zcash PR 1144 or whatever other solution we see fit. Malleability fix is a prerequisite for LN so once it will be fixeed all the active LN dev gropus (there are many of those) could move on and start deploy their implementation on the main net, once the LN will be ready.   

如果BU获胜,我们肯定会制定解决交易延展性的方案,它或许是隔离见证、Flexible交易、ZcashPR1144的改进版等都可以考虑。解决交易延展性问题是部署闪电网络的先决条件,一旦这个问题解决了,那么闪电网络开发组(有很多这样的组织)只要准备好,就可以在主网展开部署。

5.Fungibility is definitely something that I personally see as an area that need a lot of improvements. At the Milan Scaling Conference a lot of time has been spent to present solutions aimed at increasing bitcoin fungibility and a non zero amoutn of such solution techniques are applicable to any scenarios.
我个人认为可替换性是非常需要改善的方面。在米兰扩容会议上人们花了很多时间讨论提升比特币可替换性的方案,有很多技术解决方案适用于任何应用场景。
2016-11-19 09:59:23 Andrew_Stone: 1.I am not worried.  Excessively sized blocks will be ignored by the network due to miner’s “excessive block size” parameter.  Also, the network’s throughput naturally limits average block sizes because a large block takes longer to propagate.  This makes it more likely that the next block will be an “empty block”, since miners are using stratum mining to get the block header as soon as its mined.  You can read a formal paper that presents data collected on the bitcoin network showing this effect and a formal proof here:  https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/1txn.pdf

我不担心这个。因为矿工可以设定“过大区块体积”参数,来让网络忽略超大区块。而且,网络的吞吐量会对区块的大小有一个自然的限制,因为,过大区块传播时间更长,这样产生的结果很可能就是下一个区块是一个“空块”,因为矿工使用Stratum挖矿协议来尽快获得区块头数据。你可以在我们正式的论文中找到我们在比特币网络中收集的数据(https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/1txn.pdf),这些数据提供了证明。

2.One of the main reasons BU was founded was due to the “exclusionary arrogance” that you describe.  I put measures into place before I wrote a single line of code.  These measures are written up in a formal organizational structure that you can read about here: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles.  This structure limits the power of all officers, including the Github committer, and allows them to be periodically replaced.

For example, if the Developer refuses to commit a feature that you’ve written, you can request that the members vote on the feature.  If it is passed, the developer must include it.
创建BU客户端的一个主要原因就是如你所说的“傲慢独行”。在我编写代码前还有一些措施,这些措施已经写进一个正式的组织架构中,你可以在这阅读:https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles这个架构可以限制相关人员的权力,包括Github的代码贡献者,允许他们定期被更迭。例如,你提交了一个功能,但是被拒绝了,你就可以向成员发起投票,投票通过,开发者就必须添加此功能。

3.I think that there is a tight relationship but the details are unknowable to us.  I’m not even sure of the details between Blockstream and certain of its employees!  However, it seems clear that in the last year or two, employees of Blockstream have been setting the Bitcoin Core agenda, working on LN and proprietary blockchains and simultaneously denying any conflict of interest.
这里的关系很密切,但是我们不知道具体细节。我甚至不确定Blockstream和他们员工之间的细节。但是,很明显,在过去的一两年里,Blockstream设定了BitcoinCore的议程,他们创建闪电网络,申请区块链专利,同时拒绝任何分叉建议。

4.Yes, I want on-chain and off-chain scaling solutions to compete for users.  This will make Bitcoin strong and popular!  There are really compelling use cases for LN payment channels -- like video download.  But I’m not sure those use cases are the same as on-chain use cases. (Remember, LN scales the # of transactions per user, but it does not scale the # of users.) But the great thing is that with the BU approach I don’t have to decide and so I don’t have to be right.  We can let the market decide.

是的,我想让链上扩容和链下扩容方案有所竞争。这会让比特币更健壮和流行。闪电网络的支付通道有很多迷人的应用案例,比如视频下载。但我不认为这些使用案例可以替代所有的链上扩容的使用案例。(要记住,闪电网络可以扩展每个用户的交易量,但不能扩展用户量)。我不必为这样大的问题做决定,我也不一定是正确的,我们会让市场做决定。

So after larger blocks, I would like to propose a new transaction format that will solve LN problems, embedded wallet problems, add fraud proofs, and fix a lot of other issues that have come up.  Doing this with a new transaction format will be MUCH cleaner and less buggy than doing it in the SegWit manner.
所以,在扩容之后,我想提议一个新交易格式,可以解决闪电网络问题和嵌入钱包问题,添加欺诈证明,修复其它更多的问题。这样一种新交易格式比隔离见证更加整洁,bug更少。
2016-11-19 09:43:01 Dr.Peter_Rizun: 1.There would still be an effective block size limit with Bitcoin Unlimited.  I suspect it would probably by 2 MB initially.  Therefore, an excessive block attack would not be possible.
BU也是有有效区块体积限制的。我觉得开始时可能是2MB,所以超大区块攻击是不可能的。

2.Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't want to be in sole control of Bitcoin development.  We want to be one of a few competing implementations.  This way, if the community doesn't like what we're doing, then they can start to run another implementation instead.  We'll see our node counts and hashing power dropping, and that will be our "wake up call" to deliver what our users want or risk losing them forever.  

BU不行成为独占比特币开发的客户端,我们想成为众多竞争客户端中的一员。这样一来,如果社区不喜欢我们的客户端,他们就可以转移到其它客户端上。这时,我们的节点数量和算力支持会下降,这是给我们的警钟,会让我们反思用户想要的是什么,否者我们会永久地失去他们。

3.This is a tricky question, because there is "Core" and then there is the "Core of Core."  Most of the people working on Core are working on it because it is presently the dominant implementation.  These people will be happy to work on Bitcoin Unlimited or another implementation of Bitcoin if Core loses node share and mining support.  The "Core of Core," on the other hand, is a tightly-knit group of technocrats with strong ties to Blockstream: Gavin, Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn were all pushed out.
这是个棘手的问题,因为Core中还有核心。很多人都为Core工作,因为Core是目前占统治地位的客户端。 当Core失去的它的节点地位和支持后,这些人会很乐意为BU或其它客户端工作。“Core中的核心”是一个组织紧密的专家集团,与blockstream的关系紧密:把Gavin ,Jeff Garzik和Mike Hearn等开发者都排挤出去了。

5.Is privacy a weakness of Bitcoin?  I’ve personally never had any problems with it.  Let me ask you a question: what is the ideal amount of privacy in a currency system?  If bitcoin were perfectly traceable and non-anonymous, it would be bad because then everyone would be able to see how much money you have, what you spend it on, etc.  But on the other hand, if bitcoin were perfectly untraceable and anonymous, then it would be much more difficult to catch people who hack exchanges and steal funds, or audit the spending of a public organization (e.g., imagine a distant future when even governments use bitcoin).  I guess my point is that I don't know yet what the "right" amount of privacy.  
隐私性是比特币的弱项吗?我个人对此没有异议。我也想问你:一个货币体系需要的最理想的隐私程度是多少?如果比特币可追溯、非匿名肯定不好,因为所有人都可以知道你有多少钱,花在了哪里。但另一方面,如果比特币完全不可追溯又是匿名也有问题,那些黑客、盗用资金或者篡改公共机构(假如未来政府也开始使用比特币)支出的人就很难找到。我想说的是我也还不清楚“恰当”的隐私程度。

Because Bitcoin under BU evolves according to the will of the market, I suspect if the market really does want better privacy, then that’s what it will get.  
因为BU是根据市场意愿来的,我觉得目前市场应该不会需要更大的隐私度。
2016-11-19 09:24:18 Andrea_Suisani: 2.The main goal is not to pass the testimony from Core to BU, but to have a multiple strong implementations in such a way that no single group of dev will have the monopoly in terms of protocol decision.

我们的目的不是为了让舆论导向从Core转移到BU,而是想实现多种强大的客户端,以这样的方式来防止出现单一的垄断集团,包揽协议开发决策。

3. I don’t know that, the fact is that there’s only one dev group that is in charge when it comes to protocol decisions. I don’t know if the such group is “owned” by BlockStream or any other entity. We are working toward a solution that will avoid the intrinsic problem that a lone group dev bring, such solution is having diverse dev groups working on the protocol.  

我不知道。事实是这样的,只有一个开发组织在做协议开发决策。我不知道这个组织是否被Blockstream或其它实体所“拥有”。我们正在努力创建一个避免单一开发组织的方案,这个方案就是多样化的协议开发团队。
收起
qkl 2016-11-16 15:55:40
我的问题有些直接,可以不答。
1. 你们开发人员领工资 吗?有投资方吗?
2. 如果领工资?每个月多少?还是按效果付费?
3. unlimited的算力支持来自哪里?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 10:00:20 Andrew_Stone: We were given approximately 500k USD in Bitcoin from an anonymous donor, and some developers get a salary from other anonymous donors.  
我们有一笔50万美元的匿名捐款,有些开发者也会从其他匿名捐款人那里拿到工资。

To understand why donors must remain anonymous, you need to understand the situation in the West.  We have 2 main forums for Bitcoin information,  bitcointalk.org and reddit r/bitcoin.  Both are controlled by an individual named Theymos who actively censors any posts about non-Core clients.  About a year ago, a major american exchange made posting in favor of large blocks and an alternative client.  
要了解为什么捐款人必须匿名,你就要知道目前西方的舆论情况。我们有两个主要的比特币论坛:bitcointalk.org和reddit r/bitcoin,两个论坛其实都是一个叫Theymos的人控制着,他会审查所有反对Core的帖子。大概一年前,美国一家大交易所发了一个贴支持区块扩容和其他解决方案。

In retailation, this exchange had a significant amount of negative news posted about it on these 2 forums and positive news was censored.  For months.  Its still happening to a small extent.  Losing the support of the major news sources for Bitcoin is a huge problem for any business that wants new new customers.  
作为报复,这两个论坛出现了大量关于这个交易所的负面新闻,而正面信息都被审查了。现在这种情况也在发生,对于任何不想丢客户的公司而言,如果在比特币论坛失去支持会是一个严重的问题。

All western businesses are therefore very shy about publicly posting any supportive statements and certainly will not publicly support us.  
所有西方现在很多公司不愿公开表达他们的看法,所有也不会公开对我们的支持。

But most Bitcoin businesses NEED bitcoin to grow to succeed.  They NEED larger blocks.  The donated money should speak louder than words about the support we have.  If the chinese miners move to larger blocks, I believe the majority of Western businesses will be happy.
但是大多数比特币企业需要比特币更加繁荣。他们需要更大的区块容量。我们收到的捐款证明了他们对我们的支持。如果中国矿工切换到更大的区块,我相信大部分西方企业都会觉得高兴。

2016-11-19 09:27:47 Andrea_Suisani: 回答第三个问题:ViaBTC, Bitcoin.com are mining blocks using BU bitcoind. Slush for some of the blocks he produces is signalling BU “support” on the coinbase tx even if it actually mines with a Core bitcoind.
ViaBTC, Bitcoin.com 正在用unlimited挖矿,Slush矿池则根据用户投票比例标记块的支持,尽管他们仍在运行core的软件挖矿
收起
比特吹 2016-11-16 16:05:48
bitcoin ulimited 有何策略来赢得矿工的青睐, 你们和core的关系咋样。  BU有方法解决数据暴涨的问题吗?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 09:45:52 Dr.Peter_Rizun: How does Bitcoin Unlimited plan to win the favor of the miners?
BU计划如何赢得矿工的青睐?
By listening to them and delivering what they want. For example, right now miners need to mine empty blocks for longer than necessary due to the amount of time it takes to verify the last block and construct a new block template.  Peter Tschipper's Xval addressed part of this, and we have a new project in the pipeline to address the rest of it.  This will improve miners’ profitability.  
倾听矿工的声音,按照他们的意愿输出方案。比如,现在矿工希望挖空快的时间更长一些,因为确认上一个块开始挖一个新块的时间比较长。Peter Tschipper的Xval部分解决了这个问题,我们同时也有新的方案来解决剩下的部分。这可以增加矿工的收入。
If miners want other things, let us know.  You are our customers and we want to provide you with the tools you need to be successful.  
如果矿工有别的需求也可以告诉我们。你们是顾客,我们希望给顾客提供有用的工具。

What is your relationship with Core like?
你们和Core的关系怎么样?
I have a great relationship with most people in the bitcoin community include several developers who presently write code for Core.  However, there is a certain clique within Core that has banned me from IRC channels and does not allow me to post our work about Bitcoin Unlimited and "emergent consensus" to the Bitcoin-dev mailing list.  Hopefully, these people lose power and communication can once again be free and open.
我跟比特币社区的很多人关系都不错,其中也有部分正在为Core写代码的人。但是Core把我从IRC拉黑,也不允许我给比特币开发者的联系邮箱推送关于BU和“应急共识”的内容。我希望这些人最终失去民心,让社区重新自由开放。


How does BU propose addressing the huge growth in storage and bandwidth requirements?
BU方案如何处理存储暴涨和带宽占用的问题?
Like sickpig said, Xthin really helped with full-node bandwidth requirements for block download.  
就像sickpig说的,Xthin对区块下载时要求的全节点带宽有很大的改进。
4.png

But in the future, I imagine most users will use light wallet (e.g., SPV nodes), which can already work today with blocks of any size.  Storage and bandwidth won’t be a problem at all for most users.  The idea that you need to run your own full node to use Bitcoin securely is untrue.  Even Satoshi thought so:  "At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
但是未来我认为大部分用户应该会使用轻钱包(例如SPV节点),这个现在对任何大小的区块都可行。存储和带宽对于大部分用户来说都不会是问题。有人认为必须运行自己的全节点才安全,这个想法是不对的。中本聪都说过:“最初大部分用户会运行网络节点,但是当网络扩大到一定范围,越来越多的节点会交给那些运行专业设备的服务器机房。一个机房只需要网络中的一个节点,其余的通过LAN来连接这个节点。”
2016-11-19 09:28:53 Andrea_Suisani: I don’t think we have to win the favor of the miners. I think that what  BU is proposing is perfectly aligned with miners economic incentives.
我不觉得我们必须赢得矿工的青睐。我认为目前的BU方案跟矿工的经济利益是完全一致的。

With regard the relation with Core I think the most of people/engineers contributng to core a smart and talented at tech level, the problem is that contributing to Core is a little bit time consuming and hence frustrating. Just have a look at pull requests conversations on github, at times the level of bike shedding on proposal that come from exteranal contributor reach very high level. That said I don’t think that at this point our relation with Core has an actual weight on the unfolding of the current situation.
关于和Core的关系,我认为为Core做贡献的大多数人和工程师都是非常聪明有才的,问题就是为Core做贡献比较费时间所以很头疼。就拿从github请求对话来看,有时候外部贡献者对于某些方案的争执非常白热化。所以现在看来我们跟Core的关系还没办法对现在的局势产生比较大的影响力。

WRT huge storage: pruning nodes, storing devices getting cheaper and cheaper, improvement to tx format to save more space, the possibilities here are a lot.
关于大存储:精简节点、存储设备越来越便宜,文件格式优化也能节省更多空间,大存储的可能性很大

WRT bandwidth consumption: a full nodes using Xthin today could save 95% of the BW during blocks propagation. We have other solutions that will reduce the amount of BW needed to rely transactions, see:
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP/blob/master/022.mediawiki - Xinv
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP/blob/master/017.mediawiki - Datastream compression
关于占用带宽:目前使用Xthin的全节点可以在区块广播中节省95%的带宽。我们也有其他可以减少带宽占用的解决方案:
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP/blob/master/022.mediawiki - Xinv
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP/blob/master/017.mediawiki - 数据流压缩
收起
杀死卡尔 2016-11-16 18:09:14
本来吧,硬分叉的毛病就是“扬汤止沸”而且分叉成两种比特币造成市场混乱。现在好了,BU相出了一个方案,加点前戏再上~可以的,一定要玷污了比特币才算完。不知道我理解的对不对啊,接受大家点评~

diyanchn 2016-11-16 21:58:45
比特币系统目前公认的需要改进的地方有两个,扩容问题,交易延展性问题。 不同于Core的SW方案所宣称的同时解决两个问题(虽然扩容问题没有真正在SW解决),BU方案只解决了扩容问题。BU对交易延展性有何计划?  如果有,是硬分叉还是软分叉?

自带翻译:
Two main problems of the bitcoin system being discussed these days are 1, Malleability problem, and 2, Scaling problem. Different from the Seg-wit, which is claimed to be able to fix both the Malleability problem and the Scaling problem (I doubt it), the BU roadmap has only plan on the Scaling problem. I would like to ask the developers from BU, do you have any plan about the Malleability problems? If so, is it a hard-fork or a soft-fork?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 10:29:55 Andrea_Suisani: As you can see here https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-proposed-development-roadmap.1401/
malleability fix is in the BU roadmap in the form of implmenting Flexible Transaction, we have in a BUIP to impement SegWit ad an hardfork see:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip037-hardfork-segwit.1591/#post-30707

In my opinion, the market wants a block size limit increase the most.  Let's talk about malleability after we've solved the most pressing problem.  
你可以在这里看到 https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-proposed-development-roadmap.1401/
可塑性修复是在BU路线图中包含在灵活交易( Flexible Transaction)的实现中,我们在一个BUIP中计划硬分叉实现SegWit:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip037-hardfork-segwit.1591/#post-30707
收起
nodouble 2016-11-16 23:01:14
如果BU成功了,你们开发团队是不是有计划吸收目前CORE的开发人员并给予commit权限?
回复 收起
2016-11-19 10:03:03 Andrew_Stone: As I said previously we aim to a situation to have multiple implmentations that compete to improve the protocol. That said we are an open source project with a well define way to partecipate to BU development (see the Article of Federation: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles), so if a current core dev want to submit his contribution to BU we are more than happy to accept it.

We would always welcome new developers and contributions

正如我前面所说,我们的目标是有多个实现来竞争以改进比特币协议。 这就是说,我们是一个开放源代码项目,已经有一个很好的定义方式来参与到BU开发(见合作条款:https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles),所以如果一个当前的核心开发者想提交他的代码到BU,我们非常乐意接受它
我们永远欢迎新的开发者和贡献者!
收起
XRP 2016-11-17 13:59:35
BU的支持者,非常中心化
CxWWsUfVQAAc2dQ.jpg


bitcoin core非常去 中心化。
CxWWsjRUoAAYT9e.jpg

有什么想法吗?


回复 收起
2016-11-17 16:01:52 江卓尔: 这种抬杠没意义,BU在支持的初期,支持的矿池会越来越多,越来越去中心化。

比特币初期(第1年)的挖矿和持币都非常集中,中本聪持有接近100%的算力和币,
有什么想法吗?
收起

本期嘉宾

神回复

AMA时间:2016-11-19 08:00 - 2016-11-19 10:00 热度(7083) 讨论(81)
返回顶部 返回列表

登录

发帖