第7期
我是Bitcoin开发者Gavin Andresen,关于比特币扩容,欢迎来问!

我是Bitcoin开发者Gavin Andresen,关于比特币扩容,欢迎提出你的任何问题!【观点】Gavin:我无法支持中心规划类的比特币愿景Gavin:关于中本聪圆桌会议的一些感想比特币2MB分叉仅仅只是改一行代码么? Gavin: 少数派分支 币话题:比特币扩容之争,优选bitcoin core还是bitcoin classic?【分歧】Bitcoin Core路线主要是通过发展第…

已结束 参与人数:205

我是Bitcoin开发者Gavin Andresen,关于比特币扩容,欢迎提出你的任何问题!

【观点】

Gavin:我无法支持中心规划类的比特币愿景
Gavin:关于中本聪圆桌会议的一些感想
比特币2MB分叉仅仅只是改一行代码么?
Gavin: 少数派分支
币话题:比特币扩容之争,优选bitcoin core还是bitcoin classic?



【分歧】

Bitcoin Core路线主要是通过发展第二层协议(如侧链和闪电网络)来实现比特币的扩展,短期内则通过隔离验证方案实现有限的扩容效果,但不排除通过硬分叉对比特币区块进行扩容。

Bitcoin Classic路线主要是对比特币的区块作修改,包括区块大小的调整,以及使用瘦区块(Thin blocks)、弱区块(Weak blocks)等方案来实现链上(on-chain)式的扩容,该路线也会部署简化版的隔离验证方案。

究竟哪种发展路线会更适合比特币,Bitcoin Core还是Bitcoin Classic?欢迎讨论!



感谢钟隐(cnLedger)的热心联系与协助翻译。本次双向协作翻译由kcb,pangcong,emusher,miner,钟隐等朋友共同完成,感谢大家。
Gavin Andresen身在美国,时差原因,此次活动将于北京时间4.21晚7:00准时开始。

4.21晚七点,期待你的关注!




  • 最新
  • 最热
  • fhctpr42 队长 发表于2016-04-14 12:16:43
    大神级人物,中本聪之后第一人了吧。
  • V字特攻队 队长 发表于2016-04-14 12:56:03
    一定是在逗我,加文会来这里耍?
  • Angel 副船长 发表于2016-04-14 13:22:16
    真六,,,,期待
  • crypto888 队长 发表于2016-04-14 13:45:24
    问一下Gavin和Blockstream的关系目前如何? 是处于冷战期吗?当年你对BS的评价还是很高的: “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation. 现在你对BS公司的看法如何?
    GavinAndresen 船员 回复crypto888 发表于2016-04-21 18:57:47
    I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
    We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
    我认为在Blockstream的每个人都想让比特币成功,我尊重并感激Blockstream的人为比特币做出的贡献。
    不过我们在一些事情的轻重缓急上有着很大的分歧。我认为立即提升区块上限带来的风险小之又小,同时我看到了个人和企业因为当下的上限对比特币望而却步,从而投向其他资产(比如以太坊和私链),虽然这对比特币带来的风险至今还未知,但是我认为这些风险一定是大于提升或者取消区块上限的风险的。
  • 宇宙第一帅 副船长 发表于2016-04-14 14:03:48
    我是中本聪,你小子算什么
  • 大土豆 队长 发表于2016-04-14 14:08:26
    mark 呆......
  • 玛_雅 版主 发表于2016-04-14 14:37:59
    大神能来巴比特,真是热烈欢迎呀!想问的问题很多,筛选出几个重要的问吧,望答复。
    1、为何执意坚持Classic仅仅75%就硬分叉,从而3:1的算力比带来分裂币圈的风险。您之前答复是说因若95%可能控制5%而被控制,这个同意,但有个度。现75%是每四个人就有一个人不支持时,还强制进行硬分叉忽略高达1/4人的观点是否太偏激。感觉90%是否是更适合的度?
    2、怎么解决Classic路线图中,后期浮动上限,可能造成的超大区块,进而未来节点中心化的问题?
    3、请问您为何不支持中本聪早期最早提出的RBF提案,甚至打算在Classic中完全删除它。
    4、对于隔离验证软分叉、侧链技术、闪电网络技术,您是支持还是反对,请简述下理由,谢谢。
    5、脑钱包脑口令工具,您之前发文《千万别用脑钱包!你很可能失去你的比特币!》(可能译者有点夸大或误解)http://8btc.com/thread-2783-1-1.html,请评价下新文章《比特币脑钱包,你应该用!》http://www.8btc.com/bitcoin-brainwallet《左脑右脑一个完美组合,双脑脑钱包诞生》http://www.8btc.com/brainwallet-2 能否说下您对脑钱包脑口令工具的最新观点?若解决了新用户难使用长且复杂脑口令的安全问题后,是否其应该是不错的工具?
    xzfkiller 副船长 回复玛_雅 发表于2016-04-21 23:11:07
    it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction. 翻译的有点问题:这里witness data的merkle root和block header里的merkle root是两颗merkle root树,Gavin指的是把witness data的merkle root放到block header里的merkle root中,是作为merkle root的一个节点,而不是直接放到block header中.
    GavinAndresen 船员 回复玛_雅 发表于2016-04-21 19:02:02
    1.The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network. 从上两次的共识分叉的经验来看,一旦共识达到75%,剩下的矿工都非常迅速的切到多数链上了。上一次的软分叉中,从75%到95%只花了一个星期。所以我相信一旦算力支持达到75%,剩下的所有矿工都会升级的,更不用说BIP109(Classic)给出了那些矿工28天的时间了。没有任何矿工愿意产出这个网络不接受的区块。
    2.Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
    I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
    Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
    Andreas Antonopoulos最近有个关于人们曾经如何多次预测互联网没法扩容的演讲。聪明的工程师们一次又一次的证明这些人的说法是错误的。(这就是为什么我每晚看网络视频都看的很开心的原因) 我的第一份工作是写3D作图软件,我亲眼目睹这个行业从一开始只能画很简单的场景到今天的每秒渲染上亿个三角的迅速变迁。 处理金融交易比起仿真现实可容易多了,在今天的电脑和网络条件下,就算不实施未来那些软件优化,比特币都可以轻松的扩容至每秒上千个交易。
    3.Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
    When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
    只有在当大多数钱包和大众都开始用了RBF的时候,才是该讨论比特币网络支持RBF的时候,因为由于multi-signature和硬件钱包并不能随时保持网络联机的原因,在这些钱包上面实现RBF是非常困难的事情。 只有当许多钱包开发者开始认为RBF是个很好的主意后,才是在比特币网络上布局RBF的时候,而不是反之。
    4.The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
    I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
    I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
    只有让大众亲自去尝试一件事物才是验证一件事物能不能成功的最好方式。也许很多事物会失败,不过只要有一部分能成功,那就不是问题。 我认为SegWig是一个很棒的主意,并且使用硬分叉会比使用软分叉要简单一些。(因为把给witness data的merkle root放入block header会比将之放入交易中更好。)但是总体设计是很好的。 我认为sidechain是很好的主意,但是主要问题在于如何确保他们的安全性。我认为最好的侧链模式应该是只发布在比特币中的“write-only”的公共信息。比如:我希望看到有交易所去试着将买单卖单都放在侧链上,并且在侧链上进行交易,因为侧链能够保证这些交易的安全性。这样一来客户可以验证每单交易是否都如实执行,没有任何人能做任何猫腻。
    5.We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
    We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
    我们人类在创建冗长且复杂的密码方面其实非常差劲,经常会出现随机性不够强,不够安全的密码,且我们记忆也不是那么好。 我们更擅长于安全保存好一个实物,所以比起脑钱包我对硬件钱包和纸钱包更感兴趣。我不相信我自己能够在脑钱包里保存好比特币,也不推荐其他人这样做。
    玛_雅 版主 回复kcb 发表于2016-04-16 00:39:43
    大神的那篇博文,以前就看过了,既然你引用,我再看了一遍。当然是有疑问的。我也没有重复问吧。另外我也不完全否认其担忧。但是我正在和大神考虑度。博文中也是举例的80%,而Classic用的是75%。 非要针对某个点来问。那就问下,您是怎么确认算力比与用户支持占比是绝对一致的。若Classic链虽然算力75%支持,但用户应用只有25%支持,而Core链虽然算力25%,但用户应用高达75%呢?这种可能性,在理论上还是有可能存在的。强行硬分叉,两个链岂不是会较长期共存,而分裂币圈?
    kcb 实习版主 回复玛_雅 发表于2016-04-15 07:32:17
    你的第一点Gavin专门写了一篇博文来解释,中文翻译:http://www.8btc.com/minority-branches如果你还有疑问,也请读完以后,针对文中某个点来问,不要同样的问题一遍一遍的重复问。
  • 骑牛古道 队长 发表于2016-04-14 14:45:07
    你见过中本聪吗? 你知道他的真是身份吗?
  • 比特吹 船长 发表于2016-04-14 14:50:40
    Gavin 你现在手上还有比特币吗, 在MIT的主要工作是啥, 是否有FBI的人来追查你过。 你认为SHA256可能在什么时候被淘汰, 现在看来似乎已经有点不安全了。
  • 三胖很棒 副船长 发表于2016-04-14 15:14:27
    久仰久仰! 只问一句,Gavin目前有为什么公司服务吗?或者说从谁哪里领的工资 ?
  • 洒脱喜 副船长 发表于2016-04-14 16:27:12
    您对闪电网络(LN) 这种 layer 2 的协议是怎么看的,它的实现复杂么? 需要通过硬分叉才能实施吧?
    GavinAndresen 船员 回复洒脱喜 发表于2016-04-21 19:24:22
    Lightning does not need a hard fork.
    It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
    I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
    闪电网络不需要硬分叉。 在比特币协议层实现它并不复杂,难的是建立能够正确处理闪电网络的钱包。 我认为闪电网络在一些新兴支付方面非常棒(如:机器对机器之间的每分钟上百次的支付),但是我对它能否用于今天的比特币网络的支付持怀疑态度,因为它即复杂化了钱包,又让大众难以理解。
  • 617425473 队长 发表于2016-04-14 16:35:15
    欧米昂,我的偶像!
  • pangcong 副船长 发表于2016-04-14 18:38:50
    关于如何扩容的问题,从去年到现在发生过很多重要的会议,其中有两个会议最重要,这两次会议都发生在香港,分别是在2015年12月5日-12月7日和2016年2月20日-2月21日,尽管有很多人反对,但无可否认的是,这两次会议基本决定了比特币的现状。然而,作为比特币最初的创始人,为什么您在这两次会议上都没有出现?如果您哪怕在其中一次会议中出现并且反对gmax主导的core路线图(sw优先发展),我们现在可能已经有更好的结果了,可能硬分产扩容早已经开始了。能否解释一下,这两次会议为什么都缺席了?这两次会议是否都是blockstream精心策划的结果?
    GavinAndresen 船员 回复pangcong 发表于2016-04-21 19:38:33
    I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
    A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
    The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
    I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
    我参加了2015年九月份在加拿大Montreal召开的第一次扩容会议,本希望能够(和Core)达成一些妥协。 在那几周以后,我发现无论我怎么妥协,他们都毫不让步。既然这些问题从2015年二月份就开始轮番的讨论了,为何十二月份又要再去一趟香港讨论,所以我认为千里迢迢去趟香港是徒劳的。 至于2016年二月香港的会议我为何没有参加,是因为他们邀请我的时候已经距离会议召开非常接近了,且那时我已经安排好了和我家人以及祖父母假期行程了。 我认为这几次会议都是由那些认为提升区块上限不是当务之急的人策划的,他们想要看看区块满了以后到底会发生什么问题。
    baowj 副船长 回复sangzou 发表于2016-04-16 01:52:51
    1,开发比特币过程中,Gavin是与中本聪交流最频繁 2,Gavin是中本聪指定接班人 3,core团队成员最初是由Gavin组建并挑选
    sangzou 水手 回复pangcong 发表于2016-04-15 09:08:48
    "然而,作为比特币最初的创始人" LOL 哥们你在搞笑么...
  • pangcong 副船长 发表于2016-04-14 18:55:21
    我们都知道,gmax可以说是为了帮自己公司融资而人为限制扩容,短期内classic也不可能推翻core,如果继续由core主导比特币的开发,将来是否可能发生,blockstream core成员因为公司利益问题,让比特币永远无法扩容?
    GavinAndresen 船员 回复pangcong 发表于2016-04-21 19:51:15
    I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
    He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
    Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
    我认为融资并不是gmax的限制扩容的动机,我认为他是真心觉得闪电网络这个解决方案从技术层面来看更好。 他有可能是对的,不过我更希望他能意识到自己也有可能是错的,同时能够尝试下别的解决方案。 Blockstream是一个有趣的公司,其中有着意见相左却十分固执的员工。这有可能导致他们在扩容问题上永远达不成一致。
  • 黑眼珠x 队长 发表于2016-04-14 22:14:26
    我想问一下您对现在的情况怎么看?一个区区的两兆硬分差,搞了两年都没有通过,在比特币的世界里,两年是个什么概念,这难道还不够阴谋论的吗? 一个几十亿美元,成千上万人参与的东西,凭什么就被几个人卡住了,这还叫去中心化,开源软件吗?区区两兆的硬分叉这么难,几千几万条改动的SW、LN倒是快得很,这正常吗?一个人是不是好人,不是看他说了什么,而是看他做了什么! 现在的问题是,人人都知道classic好,但是core开发组利用权力、政治手段控制住了矿池,使得他们在算力方面占有绝对优势,其他人再怎么呼吁也没有用。而中国矿工同外界的交流很少,也不关心系统的发展,很少有人真正了解比特币的现状,等于把权力全都交给了矿池,所以core控制住了几大矿池就控制住了比特币,你的classic再好也没有用,对于这样的情况你准备怎么办? 从这次扩容的情况看,你是否认为比特币的开发方面有很大问题,开发者是否存在中心化的情况?以后是否需要改变这种情况,比如从比特币里面抽取一定的费用作为基金,起到基金会的作用,对外招标程序和维护人员,以彻底解决开发者中心化的问题?谢谢。
    黑眼珠x 队长 回复GavinAndresen 发表于2016-04-21 21:51:14
    不是众筹,就是从比特币里面抽取,就像手续费一样,用这笔钱进行比特币的开发与维护。
    GavinAndresen 船员 回复黑眼珠x 发表于2016-04-21 19:55:52
    I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things. 我倒不认为这是阴谋论,我认为这仅仅是大家看待事务的轻重缓急的分歧以及对这些事的风险收益评估不同而已。 I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
    The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
    我仍然相信好的工程师能够绕过前方一切障碍,不过也许花的时间会长一点,也许结果也没有我预想的那么简洁。 然而主要的风险是:人们可能不会这么有耐心,他们会转去别的币种。比如最近以太坊的疯涨和以太坊开发团队的火爆就是一个警告。
    Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy. 我们应该鼓励大家支持能替代Core的客户端,如果这些客户端比Core更好的话(比如更快,功能更多),那么Core就会被替代,或者逼迫Core改善自身。当我看到如Bitcoin Unlimited中的创新的时候,我非常开心。同时,这周Matt Corallo也开始着手准备在Core中加入优化区块传输的协议,此举也许是Core早已计划好了的,也许是因为看到Bitcoin Unlimited的“extreme thin blocks”后将之优先级别提高了。不过无论如何,有竞争才是好的。
    I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
    And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
    I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
    I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
    我认为Core花了太多时间在研究一些小概率的技术风险上(如:”流氓矿工”刻意制造非常难验证的区块,或者发送无效区块给SPV钱包),而对于一些极大的非技术层面的风险却没有花足够的时间去思考。 我认为Core犯了一个开发开源软件的一个常见错误:开发者为了开发者而开发。即开发者热衷于开发一些技术层面听起来很棒的项目(比如闪电网络),却不去好好改善一些最基本的老功能(比如改善网络性能或者做代码复查和测试等等)。 不过随着越来越多的资本开始进入比特币的开发,我认为情况是在改善的。(不过不是进入Core,因为他们已经不太在意短期的商业需求,而是热衷于开发长远的新功能。 至于众筹模式的软件开发是否可行,我还是持怀疑态度。我注意到一些成功的开源项目,基本上都是由公司资助的,而不是个人。
    黑眼珠x 队长 回复kcb 发表于2016-04-20 19:32:37
    意思就是从手续费里抽取,每笔转账抽取一定的费用,只要足够支付维护和开发的钱就够了。
    kcb 实习版主 回复黑眼珠x 发表于2016-04-19 04:14:18
    你好黑眼珠, 我在翻译你的问题的时候有些疑问。想在这里问一下: 你在最后一段中提议:从比特币里面抽取一定的费用作为基金。 你所谓的从比特币里面抽取,我不是很理解是什么意思。 是抽取矿工挖出来的矿的一部分,还是抽取手续费的一部分,还是从用户手里抽取,或者是你想表达其他意思? 麻烦解答一下。谢谢。
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
前往
登录 账号发表你的看法,还没有账号?立即免费 注册
神回复