发表于 2017-2-6 13:28:59 | 显示全部楼层
活动类型:
AMA
开始时间:
2017-2-8 14:00 至 2017-2-8 16:00 商定
活动地点:
第32期
性别:
不限
已报名人数:
0

本帖最后由 萌大大 于 2017-2-20 11:03 编辑

本期嘉宾

Charlie lee 李启威
李启威 2.png
莱特币创始人Charlie lee是一名亚裔美国人,1999年毕业于麻省理工大学,拥有学士和硕士学位,攻读专业为电气工程和计算机科学。他还是Coinbase公司的工程总监,也是大型数字货币交易平台比特币中国CEO 李启元的弟弟。

莱特币(litecoin)

莱特币(litecoin)是一个类似于比特币的P2P货币,预期产出8400万个LTC,是比特币货币总量的四倍多。通过Scrypt工作量证明方案来处理交易,为Scrypt算法开发FPGA(可编程逻辑门阵列)和ASIC(专用集成电路),相比于比特币使用的sha256更为昂贵。

2011年11月9日,莱特币诞生。自此社区内有了“比特金,莱特银”的说法。

最近,莱特币的隔离见证在其测试网络上进行了激活,最大的莱特币矿池F2Pool(鱼池)联合创始人王淳对媒体表示,将支持莱特币实施软分叉隔离见证。同时,coinbase首席执行官Brian Armstrong最近也大力支持隔离见证激活。


莱特币为什么要实行隔离见证

莱特币未来还有哪些发展计划

北京时间2月8日莱特币创始人,Charlie lee做客巴比特AMA,

畅聊你想知道的一切话题,欢迎来问!









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
gowithbtc 2017-2-6 13:55:58
莱特币为什么要实行隔离见证?

因为莱特币想吸比特币的血



回复 收起
2017-2-8 15:07:54 狗狗币之神回复Charlie_Lee : 翻译出了点小问题,  

在这个例子中,开发者不是司令,用户才是
2017-2-8 14:22:32 Charlie_Lee回复panda117 : 本帖最后由 萌大大 于 2017-2-8 14:39 编辑

If miners have the power to vote and they happen to not support SegWit, then will the developers comply with the miners’ vote?

Using the same example as above, if the majority of the generals decide to not signal. The commander has a few options. He can get new generals or he can just tell the signaling generals to go ahead and attack. This makes the battle a bit more risky, but it may have to be done.

In this example, the developers are not the commander. The users are. So as developer, we need to see if the economic majority of Litecoin users want SegWit. From what I am seeing today, the support is overwhelmingly in favor. So if it comes to that, we will have to decide what drastic measures to take to add SegWit to the protocol. But we are not close to that point yet.

但是如果矿工有这个权力,而同时又出现软SW不被矿工支持的情况,那么开发组会响应矿工的其它投票出的需求吗?

还是用拜占庭将军的例子来解释,如果大多数将军都不举旗,司令可以更换将军,或者让少数举旗的将军进攻,这样战败风险更大,但也许这是必要的。

在这个例子中,开发者不是将军,用户才是。所以作为开发者,我们要看是不是大多数的莱特币用户都想要隔离见证。目前就我所看到的情况,大多数用户都支持隔离见证。所以如果真的出现了矿工不支持的情况,我们将需要考虑采取何种方式来安装隔离见证。但我们现在还没走到那一步。





2017-2-8 14:18:37 Charlie_Lee回复panda117 : 本帖最后由 萌大大 于 2017-2-8 14:35 编辑

If the miners do not have the power to vote and effect changes in Litecoin’s protocol, then the miners should not even be asked to vote whether or not to activate SegWit.

Miners are not asked to vote. They are asked to signal for when they are ready to support a new feature. Signaling is a way to coordinate between the miners. The users decide whether or not to accept this new feature.

You can think of this similar to the Byzantine General’s problem. The commander wants the generals to attack. If the general is ready to attack, he raises his flag to signal that he’s ready. Once 75% of the generals have their flags up, they start the attack. And the other 25% will see that and quickly get ready to attack also. The generals (or miners in this case) are just signaling that they are ready. It’s the commander (or users of Litecoin) that really decides whether or not to attack. And in this example, each general can decide not to signal and effectively block the attack.

如果矿工没投票修改规则的权力,那么压根就不应该让矿工投票决定是否激活SW。

我们并没有要求矿工投票。我们只是要求矿工表明他们是否已准备好支持这个新功能,这是一种协调矿工进行合作的方式。用户会决定是否接受这个新功能。

这就类似于拜占庭将军问题:司令想让将军进攻,如果将军做好了进攻的准备,他就举起旗帜表明他已经准备好了。一旦75%的将军都举起了旗帜,进攻就开始了。剩下的25%看到之后,就会加快准备以参与进攻。将军们(矿工)只是举旗表明他们准备好了,而司令(用户)决定是否发动攻击。每位将军都有权决定不举旗帜来反对进攻。


2017-2-8 14:08:25 Charlie_Lee回复panda117 : 本帖最后由 萌大大 于 2017-2-8 14:34 编辑

In your opinion, what is the role of the miners in the process of altering Litecoin’s protocol?

The role of miners is to process transactions and secure the coin. Miners play a symbiotic relationship with users for a crypto currency. Miners provide security, which provides value to the coin. And users using the coin provides value, which helps the miners because what they mine is worth something.

I think there’s a general confusion that SegWit signaling is a vote. It’s more of a signal that Litecoin miners are ready to support new things added to the protocol. In the end it’s the users or the economic nodes that decides if Litecoin should upgrade it’s protocol.

That said, being a symbiotic relationship, you don’t want to do something that hurts the miners and cause them all to quit. For example, if we hardfork to reduce the block rewards to 0, miners are not going to go along with that. And the security of the coin suffers. That will likely kill the coin. On the flip side, if the miners decide to fork to give themsleves more coins, the users will not accept that fork and the miners will be mining a useless fork.

So we want to work with miners to achieve the best for Litecoin.
请问你怎么看矿工在莱特币规则修改中的地位?

矿工的角色是处理交易以及保证莱特币的安全。对于数字货币来说,矿工和用户之间是共生的关系。矿工保证莱特币的安全性,而这使得莱特币有价值;用户使用莱特币,这也使得莱特币有价值,也就意味着矿工挖币是有价值的。

我认为很多人都把这件事情误解成了一次投票。这件事情更多地是在表示,莱特币矿工已经准备好支持新添加的代码了。是否升级的最终决定,是由用户或者经济节点作出的。

矿工和用户之间是共生的关系,所以不能损害矿工的利益而导致他们全都退出。假设我们通过硬分叉将区块奖励降为零,矿工们肯定不同意;没有矿工,莱特币的安全就得不到保证,甚至会毁灭莱特币。反过来讲,如果矿工通过硬分叉来提高区块奖励,用户们肯定不会接受;没有用户使用莱特币的话,矿工们挖出来的币也就没有价值了。

所以我们希望与矿工合作,来实现莱特币的最大利益。




panda117 | 来自手机版 显示全部楼层
2017-2-6 14:24:20 来自手机版panda117: 你问:

请问你怎么看矿工在莱特币规则修改中的地位?
如果矿工没投票修改规则的权力,那么压根就不应该让矿工投票决定是否激活SW。

但是如果矿工有这个权力,而同时又出现软SW不被矿工支持的情况,那么开发组会响应矿工的其它投票出的需求吗?
panda117 | 来自手机版 显示全部楼层
2017-2-6 14:11:15 来自手机版panda117: 占个位置,过会再修改问题
收起
hellobitcoin 2017-2-6 14:13:04
charlie你好,
请简单聊聊莱特币2017年的整体规划?
关于隔离见证的投票啥时候出结果?
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:30:29 Charlie_Lee: Hi Charlie, please give a brief overview on the direction of Litecoin in 2017?

The most important goal of Litecoin is to get SegWit activated. Once SegWit is activated, there are a lot more things we can start adding to Litecoin. I really want to work with the Lightning team to get LN up and running on Litecoin. I have talked to Joseph Poon and he is extremely excited about this being possible on Litecoin.

The other thing I want to work on is Confidential Transactions. I think the one property that Bitcoin/Litecoin is missing from becoming the perfect form of money is fungibility. So I would want to explore making Litecoin more fungible.


Charlie你好,请简单聊聊莱特币2017年的整体规划?

莱特币最重要的目标就是激活隔离见证。一旦隔离见证被激活,我们就可以开始着手添加其他的东西。我非常想要和闪电网络团队合作,在莱特币上运行闪电网络。我已经和Joseph Poon谈过,他对于闪电网络在莱特币上运行的可能性感到非常兴奋。

另外我想要研究的是保密交易。我认为比特币/莱特币想要成为完美的货币,还缺少的一点就是可替换性,所以我想要在莱特币的可替换性上做更多的探索。

When will the voting results for SegWit be finalized?

Voting will end on January 28, 2018.

关于隔离见证的投票啥时候出结果?

投票将于2018年1月28日结束。


收起
REP 2017-2-6 14:18:36
有人说,如果莱特币上了隔离见证,可以51%攻击莱特币并同时盗窃所有隔离见证币,请问这种可能性是否存在?谢谢
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:35:27 Charlie_Lee: I heard that if Litecoin adopts SegWit, 51% can attack Litecoin and steal all SegWit-activated Litecoin. Is this a possibility? Thanks.

This is a misunderstanding of the SegWit softfork. First, let me clarify what this is talking about. SegWit transactions are anyone-can-spend transactions. The softfork is to change mining behavior to not let anyone spend these transactions, but to only let the rightful owner spend it using signatures in the witness data that is now segregated. So once SegWit activates, it is now safe to use SegWit transactions because no one can steal them. The miners will enforce it.

The question is what if 51% of the miners decide to no longer enforce SegWit after activation. Can they steal the SegWit anyone-can-spend coins?

The answer is no. After SegWit activates, the protocol rules are now locked in by all the nodes of the network. Any changes to undo those rules will be a hard fork. That means, if miners decide to try to spend those anyone-can-spend coins, it’s no longer the Litecoin chain that all the other nodes accept. So exchanges would not be on that chain and would not let you deposit those stolen coins. This is equivalent to miners 51% attacking Litecoin and giving themselves more block rewards. They can do that, but they are not mining Litecoin. They are mining a fork of Litecoin that’s not accepted by anyone else.

有人说,如果莱特币上了隔离见证,可以51%攻击莱特币并同时盗窃所有隔离见证币,请问这种可能性是否存在?谢谢。

这边可能对于隔离见证软分叉有些误会,首先,让我来澄清一下这边所说的是什么。见证本身包括签署,而签署不可能对其自身进行签署,因此见证是可以由任何人在没有交易双方同意下可以改变的,软分叉的目的是为了改变矿工的行为以防有人改变这些交易,只允许它的合法所有者使用现在隔离的见证数据中的签名来支出它,所以只要隔离见证激活了,使用隔离见证的网络将更安全,因为人没有可以窃取它,矿工们还会加强他。

有个问题是如果51%的矿工都决定不支持隔离见证网络,那么他们能够窃取所有的隔离见证币么?

答案是不会,激活隔离见证后,协议规则将被全网的节点锁定,任何撤销或违背规则的改变都会造成一个硬分叉,这就意味着,如果矿工决定支出这些隔离见证币,那么莱比特区块链上的节点不会接受他们,所以这些交易不会存在在链上并且这些被窃取的币也不会被储存起来。这就相当于如果51%的矿工攻击莱特币来给自己更多的区块奖励,那么他们不再是挖莱特币,而是在一个莱特币的不被任何人接受的分叉链上做无用功的挖矿。


收起
风起云飞扬 2017-2-6 14:21:46
是不是在莱特上测试隔离见证,如果成功,就切换到比特币来了。
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:37:47 Charlie_Lee: If SegWit is tested to be successful on Litecoin, then will it be adopted by Bitcoin?

That’s up to the Bitcoin miners and users. But I think Litecoin will pave the way and show that SegWit is an amazing upgrade to the protocol.

是不是在莱特上测试隔离见证,如果成功,就切换到比特币来了。

这取决于比特币的矿工和用户。但我认为莱特币将会为比特币铺路,证明隔离见证对比特币代码来说是一个很好的升级。


收起
touyou 2017-2-6 14:24:27
请问5个问题:1、莱特币未来是否有可能会分叉?如果分叉可能会是什么情况引起的?2、隔离验证实行过程中可能会产生分叉吗?3、您认为分叉对比特币和莱特币是好事还是坏事?4、如果产生小分叉,能否用大算力杀死它?5、还有什么办法能避免产生分叉?谢谢
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:44:06 Charlie_Lee: 1. Will there be a fork for Litecoin in the future? If so, what might be the reason to cause such a fork?
2. Will adopting SegWit lead to forking?
3. Do you think forking is a good thing or a bad thing for LTC and BTC?
4. If a small fork (soft?) happens, can it be stopped with large hashpower?
5. What other measures can be taken to avoid a fork? Thanks.

1. I assume this is about a hardfork. I think there’s a chance that we may hardfork. It depends on for what reason. It's not very likely unless the vast majority of the users want it. Any controversial hardfork would lead to a split coin like ETH/ETC. That’s the last thing I want with Litecoin or Bitcoin
2. It's a softfork, so it's a lot safer than a hardfork. Is it possible that this will fork into 2 coins? Yes, but very very small chance.
3. I think softfork is a great thing. Hardforks are dangerous and should only be used if it's non-controversial.
4. I explained it in a previous answer. Once a softfork activates, large hashpower cannot undo it.
5. Being careful and take time to plan things out. The Etheureum hardfork was rushed and didn't have consensus. That's why it lead to a split coin.

1. 莱特币未来是否有可能会分叉?如果分叉可能会是什么情况引起的?
2. 隔离验证实行过程中可能会产生分叉吗?
3. 您认为分叉对比特币和莱特币是好事还是坏事?
4. 如果产生小分叉,能否用大算力杀死它?
5. 还有什么办法能避免产生分叉?谢谢。

1. 我这里默认你指的是硬分叉。我认为硬分叉是有可能的。这要取决于是出于什么原因。除非绝大部分的用户都希望如此,否则可能性是非常小的。任何有争议的的硬分叉可能会导致币的分化,就像ETH和ETC那样。我非常不希望这种情况出现在莱特币或比特币上。
2. 隔离见证是软分叉,会比硬分叉安全很多。它是否有可能导致分化出两种币呢?是的,但可能性非常非常小。
3. 我认为软分叉是好事。硬分叉是非常危险的,应该只在没有争议的情况下才发生。
4. 我在之前的回复中解释过。一旦一个软分叉被激活,大算力也无法阻止。
5. 小心谨慎,并且花费时间来做好周全的计划。以太坊的硬分叉太仓促,并且没有达成过共识,这也是为什么它会分裂。


收起
send 2017-2-6 14:27:03
请问隔离验证实施安全吗?如果出现严重的问题,是否还能回滚到没有实施隔离验证之前的莱特币?如果不能回滚,但出现严重问题,莱特币会有生存的危险吗?应该怎么应对?

回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:46:11 Charlie_Lee: Is it safe to adopt SegWit? If severe problems occur, will it be possible to return to the pre-SegWit Litecoin? If it’s not possible to return and severe problems occur, will the existence of Litecoin be in peril? What measures can be taken to salvage such a situation?

I believe it’s quite safe to adopt SegWit. If severe problems occur, miners can soft fork to block creation of new SegWit transactions and block spending of existing SegWit transactions. If that’s what we want. It will of course hurt Litecoin, but it’s not the end of the world. We will monitor adoption of SegWit and take quick measures if needed to.

请问隔离验证实施安全吗?如果出现严重的问题,是否还能回滚到没有实施隔离验证之前的莱特币?如果不能回滚,但出现严重问题,莱特币会有生存的危险吗?应该怎么应对?

我认为隔离见证网络是相当安全的。如果有问题发生了,矿工可以通过软分叉来阻止新的隔离见证交易的创建,并且阻止已有的隔离见证交易的使用,如果这是大家想要的结果的话。这当然会伤害莱特币,但并不是世界末日。我们会监控隔离见证网络的实施,并且在必要情况下采取最快的应对措施。


收起
YOBTC 2017-2-6 14:27:09
详细解说一下!
大圣大圣 2017-2-6 14:27:15
有人说莱特币不活跃,创始人不作为不宣传导致庄家操控了大量的币。。您怎么反驳?
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:47:22 Charlie_Lee: Some people say that Litecoin developers are not very active and do not market the currency very well, leading to a few big market makers hogging large amounts of Litecoin. How would you retaliate against these claims?

We are not in the position to market Litecoin. A currency does not need to be marketed. We just need more people to use it to realize its true potential. Give it time. Even Bitcoin is mostly just used for speculation.

As for a lot of big whales trading it. We have no control over that if that’s true. The same applies to Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies.

有人说莱特币不活跃,创始人不作为不宣传导致庄家操控了大量的币。您怎么反驳?

我们没有能力对莱特币进行市场营销,而且一种货币也不需要被进行市场营销。我们需要的是让更多人去使用它,并且认识到它的的潜力。时间将会证明一切,即使现在比特币更多的被用于投机。

至于有庄家大量操控着币,如果这是真实的情况,我们也没办法控制。比特币和其他加密数字货币都存在着同样的问题。


收起
fanfanfan 2017-2-6 14:31:20
1、莱特币未来是否还会实施闪电网络?2、有人说闪电网络会导致比特币中心化,您是否认可这种观点?为什么?
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:49:18 Charlie_Lee: 1. Will Litecoin also adopt Lightning Network in the future?
2. Some people say that Lightning Network will lead to the centralization of Bitcoin -- do you agree with this claim? Why?

1. Yes, we would love to have LN run on Litecoin and will work closely with the LN devs on it
2. No, I don’t agree. LN can be very decentralized. It will actually improve fungibility and lower transaction fees.


1. 莱特币未来是否还会实施闪电网络?
2. 有人说闪电网络会导致比特币中心化,您是否认可这种观点?为什么?

1. 是的,我们很乐意在莱特币上运行闪电网络,我们也会和闪电网络开发者们密切合作。
2. 我不同意这个。闪电网络也可以是去中心化的,它的确能够提高可替代性和更低的交易手续费。



收起
baowj 2017-2-6 14:32:48
本帖最后由 baowj 于 2017-2-6 14:34 编辑

1,解决交易延展性问题,FlexTrans是比Segwit更好的技术,为什么选择Segwit而不选择Flextrans?
2,比特币选择95%支持率通过,莱特币却选择75%,这是为什么? 既然75%能够软分叉,为什么不能75%硬分叉解决交易延展性问题和扩容问题?
3,莱特币发布segwit以来,目前segwit支持的发展情况比比特币刚发布是要差很多,而且,有大的莱特币矿池明确表态不会支持segwit。segwit的开发,很明显已经不单是一个技术问题,而是从比特币衍生出来,发展成一个政治问题。无论莱特币开发者承认与否,在莱特币开发团队决定发布segwit那一刻开始,莱特币开发团队就已经卷入这场政治斗争。请问,莱特币开发者是要为core站队,强制推行Segwit么?
4,能否发布硬分叉代码解决交易延展性问题和扩容问题,让社区抉择,而不是让开发者一厢情愿的强制推行?否则,你们这种行为,很可能会造成比特币社区一样的问题,即 开发者与社区,开发者与矿工之间的割裂。
5,core在15年底香港会议上发布的roadmap,你是签字人之一,那个roadmap上明确说以后会有硬分叉扩容,但是现在呢,硬分叉扩容明明白白已经是core会议上offtopic了,从活跃的core开发者在各种场合的言论看,硬分叉扩容永远不会在core上发生了,请问,你是否仍然支持core? 是否仍然认为当初的签字是正确的?
6,请问,你支持core,是否与你在btcc的亲戚有关?
7,如果比特币最终选择了bitcoin unlimited解决扩容问题以及flextrans方案解决交易延展性问题,莱特币将何去何从?


回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:58:30 大土豆: 十分不友好且没有风度的提问,特别是第六条,或许你应该先学习如何去尊重他人。
2017-2-8 14:54:33 Charlie_Lee: 1. For solving the problem of transaction malleability, FlexTrans is a better technology than SegWit, so why choose SegWit and not FlexTrans?
2. Bitcoin concensus is 95%, but Litecoin concensus is only 75%, why is that? If 75% concensus is enough for a soft fork, then why is it not enough for a hard fork to solve transaction and blocksize limitations?
3. Since SegWit was announced for Litecoin, the support for it has appeared to be much less than when it was announced for Bitcoin, and some large LTC mining pools have expressed their opposition to SegWit. SegWit adoption is clearly no longer a technical argument, but more of a political argument, stemming off from Bitcoin. Whether or not Litecoin developers admit it, as soon as they have announced SegWit plans, they are already engaged in this political battle. Are Litecoin developers politically aligning with Bitcoin Core and forcefully activating SegWit?
4. Would it be possible to release the code for a hard fork to solve the problems of transaction and blocksize limitations, and let the community decide, rather than the developers forcing their preference on the community? Otherwise, your actions will lead to the same division between developers and the community, and between developers and the miners, just like with Bitcoin.
5. When Bitcoin Core announced the roadmap at the Hong Kong summit in 2015, you were one of the people to sign on the roadmap. On that roadmap, it was clearly stated that a hard fork will occur in the future. However, now the Core team simply seems to see it as an afterthought. Based on the active involvement of the Core team in different discussion forums and the lack of mention for a hard fork, it seems like a hard fork will never happen with the Core team. Do you still support the Core team? Do you think it was right to sign on the roadmap back then?
6. Is your support for Bitcoin Core related to you having a relative at BTCC?
7. If, in the end, Bitcoin goes with BU’s scaling solutions and FlexTrans, what direction will Litecoin go?

1. There are many reasons. First, FlexTrans is not better technology. It’s a huge change to how things are stored. There’s a lot of risk involved with making such a big overhaul. And last I read, there were quite a few bugs in the implementation. I also don’t believe that tagging system is best used to store protocol-level data. A fixed structure is easier to manage because you know exactly how much data you have and what data is where. Lastly, FlexTrans requires a hardfork. There’s little reason to risk a hardfork for this.
2. I believe 95% is too conservative. A soft fork can be safely done with 75%. This is different than hardforking at 75%. For a hardfork, all nodes need to upgrade. For a softfork, only miners need to upgrade.
3. Yes, it’s unfortunate that SegWit on Litecoin became political too. One of the reasons I’m doing this AMA is to try to pull the politics out of SegWit on Litecoin. Let’s not let Bitcoin politics pollute Litecoin for no reason.
4. There’s absolutely no need for Litecoin to hardfork today. We are not adopting SegWit to solve the block size limit. So anyone that tells me why don’t we hard fork to 2mb on Litecoin, I know that they are bring Bitcoin politics to Litecoin. I’m not going to engage in that conversation. We are softforking SegWit into Litecoin so that we can fix transaction malleability and add future improvements like Lightning networks, Confidential Transactions, Schnorr signatures, MAST, etc. Period. If you don’t think adding these things to Litecoin is for the best, tell me why it’s not. And if you think hardforking to fix transaction malleability is better, I will explain to you why it’s not better. Don’t ask me to hardfork Litecoin to add 2mb block size. That’s just ridiculous.
5. A hard fork is always on the table. But SegWit first and then see if we still need it. I’m not sure Bitcoin will still need a hardfork after SegWit. If that’s the case, then great! I think the Bitcoin Core roadmap is good and I support it.
6. Not at all. I introduced Bitcoin to Bobby. Neither Bobby’s role at BTCC or my role at Coinbase have any influence on my views of how Bitcoin and Litecoin should improve. With a $17B marketcap, Bitcoin improvements need to be very conservative. The Bitcoin Core devs should not make reckless moves with so much money on the line. With Litecoin, we are doing things a bit less conservative like our 75% softfork activation for example. This is because Litecoin’s marketcap is only $200M. I think we are making the right tradeoffs.
7. With such a controversial topic, I can’t see how Bitcoin can possible go BU and FlexTrans. It will likely just not change, and that’s fine. It’s still the best store of value we have ever seen. Whatever happens, Litecoin is going the SegWit direction. And we welcome any Bitcoin Core devs to join us if Bitcoin for some reason goes in another direction.

1. 解决交易延展性问题,FlexTrans是比Segwit更好的技术,为什么选择Segwit而不选择Flextrans?
2. 比特币选择95%支持率通过,莱特币却选择75%,这是为什么? 既然75%能够软分叉,为什么不能75%硬分叉解决交易延展性问题和扩容问题?
3. 莱特币发布segwit以来,目前segwit支持的发展情况比比特币刚发布是要差很多,而且,有大的莱特币矿池明确表态不会支持segwit。segwit的开发,很明显已经不单是一个技术问题,而是从比特币衍生出来,发展成一个政治问题。无论莱特币开发者承认与否,在莱特币开发团队决定发布segwit那一刻开始,莱特币开发团队就已经卷入这场政治斗争。请问,莱特币开发者是要为core站队,强制推行Segwit么?
4. 能否发布硬分叉代码解决交易延展性问题和扩容问题,让社区抉择,而不是让开发者一厢情愿的强制推行?否则,你们这种行为,很可能会造成比特币社区一样的问题,即开发者与社区,开发者与矿工之间的割裂。
5. core在15年底香港会议上发布的roadmap,你是签字人之一,那个roadmap上明确说以后会有硬分叉扩容,但是现在呢,硬分叉扩容明明白白已经是core会议上offtopic了,从活跃的core开发者在各种场合的言论看,硬分叉扩容永远不会在core上发生了,请问,你是否仍然支持core? 是否仍然认为当初的签字是正确的?
6. 请问,你支持core,是否与你在btcc的亲戚有关?
7. 如果比特币最终选择了bitcoin unlimited解决扩容问题以及flextrans方案解决交易延展性问题,莱特币将何去何从?

1. 这有很多原因。首先,FlexTrans不是比Segwit更好的技术。它极大地改变了存储方式,进行如此大的改动非常危险。而且我最后一次听到他们的消息时,它在安装过程中还存在不少bug。其次,我不认为我们应该使用标记系统来储存基础数据。一个固定的结构更好管理,因为你可以知道究竟有多少数据,每条数据都在什么地方。最后,FlexTrans需要进行硬分叉,我们没有什么理由要为了这个冒这么大的风险进行硬分叉。
2. 我认为95%太保守了。软分叉只需要75%就可以安全地进行。这和75%进行硬分叉不一样;硬分叉需要所有节点都进行升级,而软分叉只需要矿工进行升级。
3. 是的,莱特币要运行隔离见证这件事,发展成政治问题是一件很不幸的事情。我做这场AMA的目的之一,就是想把隔离见证从这些政治纷争中带出来。我不希望莱特币被比特币的政治斗争无辜波及。
4. 目前绝对没有必要对莱特币进行硬分叉。我们运行隔离见证不是为了解决区块大小问题。所以如果有人问我为什么莱特币不硬分叉至2MB,我就知道他是把比特币的政治斗争扯到莱特币上来了。我不打算卷入这种政治斗争中。我们想通过软分叉来运行隔离见证,是为了修复交易延展性,以及方便未来添加诸如闪电网络、保密交易、Schnorr签名、MAST等新功能,仅此而已。如果你不认为添加这些新功能对莱特币有好处,你必须给出理由。如果你认为通过硬分叉来解决交易延展性是一个更好的办法,我会向你解释为什么这是错的。让我通过硬分叉来扩容到2MB是一件很荒唐的事。
5. 硬分叉仍然在讨论中,并不是永远不可能。我们应该先运行隔离见证,看看是否还需要进行硬分叉。我不确定比特币安装了隔离见证之后是否还需要进行硬分叉,如果不需要当然最好。我认为Core的路线图很好,我支持他们。
6. 完全无关。当初是我向Bobby介绍比特币的。不管是Bobby在BTCC的职务,还是我在Coinbase的职务,都不会影响我对比特币和莱特币该如何改进的看法。比特币市值高达170亿美元,因此任何比特币上的改动都必须保守谨慎。由于涉及金额巨大,比特币开发者们作任何决定都不应该鲁莽。莱特币市值只有2亿美元,因此我们可以不那么保守,比如我们只要求75%即可进行软分叉激活。我认为这是正确的利弊权衡。
7. 现在争议如此激烈,我想象不出比特币有什么理由会选择BU解决扩容问题以及Flextrans方案解决交易延展性问题。比特币很可能不会改变,而这也没什么大碍;比特币依然是现有的最好的储值手段。不管发生什么,莱特币都会运行隔离见证。如果比特币最终因为某些原因朝着另一个方向去了,我们也欢迎Bitcoin Core开发者们来加入莱特币。



收起
bitcoiners 2017-2-6 14:33:13
莱特币的可扩展性怎样?以太坊的功能是否可以在莱特币上实现?
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:56:30 Charlie_Lee: How is the scalability of Litecoin? Can Ethereum's functions/advantages be applied to Litecoin?

Litecoin has 4 times as much onchain scaling than Bitcoin. And if SegWit goes through, with LN, Litecoin can scale immensely. The rootstock team may be looking into adding ETH functionality as a sidechain to Litecoin after SegWit. So we will see about that. As far as adding ETH functionality straight to the Litecoin protocol, I don’t see that happening. But we will see!

莱特币的可扩展性怎样?以太坊的功能是否可以在莱特币上实现?

莱特币的链上可扩展性是比特币的四倍,如果隔离见证和闪电网络顺利进行,莱特币将更具有无限的扩展性。隔离见证实施后,Rootstock团队将会探索把ETH功能添加到莱特币侧链中的可能性,我们可以等着看看会有什么发展。至于直接将ETH的功能添加到莱特币的协议中,我不认为这会发生,不过还不能下定论。


收起
MacBook 2017-2-6 14:36:24
您是否支持比特币修改1M上限进行扩容?您认为最佳扩容方案是什么?为什么?
回复 收起
2017-2-8 14:58:02 Charlie_Lee: Do you support Bitcoin's scaling of blocksize to be larger than 1M? What do you think is the best scaling solution? Why?

I don't know if Bitcoin needs to scale larger than 1M. SegWit will improve scaling and LN will help a lot to. We may figure out future technologies so that we may never need to increase the blocksize. I think that would be the best. But of course, if it comes time that we need to increase the blocksize with a hardfork, we may just have to do that. But we are not there yet today.

您是否支持比特币修改1M上限进行扩容?您认为最佳扩容方案是什么?为什么?

我不知道比特币是否需要扩容至1M以上。隔离见证将会改善扩展性,而闪电网络也会起到很大帮助。将来可能我们会研究出新的技术,也许就不再需要增加区块大小了。我认为这也许是最好的。不过当然,如果到了我们需要通过硬分叉来进行扩容的时刻,我们可能也会不得不做。但至少目前我们还没到那一步。


收起
n1002n 2017-2-6 14:42:22
网传比特币有主密钥,由安德森掌握,是真事还是谎言?作为莱特币创始人请回答莱特币可以有主密钥吗?

回复 收起
2017-2-8 15:00:15 Charlie_Lee: Internet rumours say that there is a master private key for Bitcoin, and it’s in the possession of Gavin Andresen, is this true or just a lie? As the founder of Litecoin, could you tell us if there is a master private key for Litecoin?

There’s no master private key. There’s an alert key that Gavin and others have. That let’s them send an alert messages to all nodes. But that’s it and the alert system is now deactivated in 0.13.

For Litecoin, only I have the alert key. And the alert system is also deactivated in Litecoin 0.13.

网传比特币有主密钥,由安德森掌握,是真事还是谎言?作为莱特币创始人请回答莱特币可以有主密钥吗?

并没有主秘钥。有的是一个提示秘钥,由安德森和其他人掌握。提示秘钥可以让他们向所有节点发送提示信息,仅此而已,而且在0.13版本中,该提示秘钥已经失效了。

莱特币的提示密钥只有我一个人拥有,而且在莱特币0.13版本中,提示秘钥也已经失效了。


2017-2-7 19:25:49 fermi回复n1002n : 从来没有的事吧?哪里冒出来的这个观点?安德森都被Core团队踢出去了。
2017-2-6 23:07:44 n1002n: 此问题为关键问题,万望回复,它决定比特币及莱特币是否真正实现去中心化,如果不能去中心化坚决不碰,否则不如等待央行的法定数字货币系统!
收起
悠悠然 2017-2-6 14:45:07
请问莱特币开发团队目前有几人?分别职责是什么呀
回复 收起
2017-2-8 15:01:57 Charlie_Lee: How many people does the Litecoin developer team currently consist of? What are their roles?

We have 9 people that contribute to Litecoin development. There’s no specific roles. We just contribute however we can.

请问莱特币开发团队目前有几人?分别职责是什么呀?

我们目前有九个人致力于莱特币的开发,目前还没有明确的职责划分,我们尽我们所能作出自己的贡献。


panda117 | 来自手机版 显示全部楼层
2017-2-6 14:49:58 来自手机版panda117: 请问你怎么看矿工在莱特币规则修改中的地位?
如果矿工没投票修改规则的权力,那么压根就不应该让矿工投票决定是否激活SW。

但是如果矿工有这个权力,而同时又出现软SW不被矿工支持的情况,那么开发组会响应矿工的其它投票出的需求吗?
收起

本期嘉宾

神回复

AMA时间:2017-02-08 14:00 - 2017-02-08 16:00 热度(13561) 讨论(148)
返回顶部 返回列表

登录

发帖