核心开发者对比特币的最新思考：好的、坏的和丑陋的

I haven't written a long article for a long time, but too many things have happened recently. Although I am eager to stay away from all this noise, I have too many thoughts to keep silent. My understanding and views on Bitcoin have changed greatly in the past few years. It is quite difficult to convey it concisely, but before I try, I have to warn you that not all the content is pleasant, some are cruel and some are even terrible, which makes me want to publish anything straight. Until my mind calms down, but first let's start from the bright side. The effective bitcoin network has been running successfully for many years without downtime or serious failures. There is almost no need for large-scale coordination efforts. In a long enough period of time, the value of bitcoin has continued to grow substantially, far exceeding the expectations of many of us a few years ago, and its value has remained better than that of the US dollar, the euro or any other national currency, even better than most real estate and stocks. Many excellent people are engaged in many great things. The project has organized many wonderful activities and conferences around Bitcoin. It is really exciting to see so many people working enthusiastically for something that almost everyone sneered at at first and thought stark raving mad was stupid. I salute all of you. The public interest continues to grow, and whether you love it or hate it, you will inevitably hear about it from various media channels. It has received strong support from many public figures, including many celebrities and several heads of state. Many of them come from the early stage. The most talented and experienced developers are still with us and remain very active. Now let's talk about the bad side. The scalability of Bitcoin has proved quite difficult. Many people are still difficult to use and its default privacy is very poor. Although I am still optimistic about the future improvement, some of these problems are very simple. For example, the initial synchronization time requires high resources, and it is difficult to use unmanaged, especially when you want privacy. The foreseeable future is still a serious challenge for most people. In addition, with the growth of the scale and value of Bitcoin, it continues to attract more and more malicious scammers. The good days when we could just be nerds without thinking too much about bad people and what they might do are long gone. In addition, the usability and scalability problems make it disturbing that Bitcoin holdings are concentrated in a few entities. I really hope to see more people keep Bitcoin themselves, but we must face the fact that most of them. People don't want too much responsibility. They just want to press a button to let others think and do all the dirty work for them. This situation will not change soon or even get worse. Finally, the ugly side of Bitcoin is designed to have no built-in protocol update mechanism, especially no consensus rule change mechanism. The change of consensus rules is a Pandora's box. Once people start to change the rules, in principle, Bitcoin can be turned into anything or even the use it is intended to protect people from. Now it is obvious that Satoshi Nakamoto has not really considered this part, although considering that when bitcoin is worth only a few cents and no one really cares about it, when two or three people completely control all software deployment, these issues are not particularly relevant, and it is hard to blame him. Even in a completely non-political environment, it takes a great effort to find a way to smoothly deploy soft forks only from the technical level, which takes many years and requires the joint efforts of many smart people. Most of the work was completed after Satoshi Nakamoto left. Although Satoshi Nakamoto was brilliant, I'm sure he didn't have a good solution to these problems when he left. I'm not even sure if he really thought about them seriously. It turns out that these problems are very difficult and far more difficult than originally expected. There was a time when we were more optimistic. For example, in hindsight, it seemed like a daydream. Before the isolated witness was activated, the soft fork would be activated regularly, and most users didn't even need to know or turn it off. At that time, it seemed that we would soon find a general solution to the problem, and this process would soon become routine, but bitcoin was almost torn during the bifurcation war, but this optimism soon faded, no matter how good or bad, the result of the bifurcation war was the current unstable and stable balance, and no one wanted to disturb the consensus rule, and we no longer had the way to coordinate the new soft bifurcation without making it political in nature. We now know that it would become very, very ugly on the good side. For fear of mutual destruction, this has prevented further large-scale wars, but the downside is that it has led to the actual paralysis of further improvement of Bitcoin infrastructure. Some people may want to blame this on specific individuals or some laser eye cults or other nonsense, but the fact is that this is a fundamental limitation of Bitcoin technology and a social dynamic. It has evolved organically in response to perceived threats. Some threats may be imaginary, but some are very, very real. I wrote a short article in the newspaper before, covering three kinds of risks inherent in any protocol update. I will briefly review some of them here. These three categories are technical risk, consensus risk, process risk and precedent risk. Technical risk is a problem faced by most mission-critical software projects, such as errors or unintentional vulnerabilities and vulnerabilities. Consensus risk involves differences between nodes in most work chains because they run different versions of software, which usually leads to different users seeing different books. The final process and precedent of two or more different networks that are completely non-interoperable are the risks of loopholes and attack media introduced through the standardization of deployment process and the habits obtained from it. The hard fork needs complete central coordination, and the soft fork is essentially a benevolent attack. Neither of them is ideal at all. The former cannot even be actually deployed at present. According to the original bitcoin design, the latter is actually an attack on the network. We have successfully broken through this limitation and still deployed one kindly. Some things, but we should never forget that soft bifurcation is actually an attack on the network that Satoshi Nakamoto thinks and can be used to prevent every evil behavior in bitcoin design. At this point, assuming that Satoshi Nakamoto is a kind entity, I am very sure that Satoshi Nakamoto knows nothing about the category and category, but we should not be too strict with him. After years of experiments and repeated trials, we watched other networks completely screw up and even begin to approach the category systematically. Until today, the category is still a completely unsolved problem and a complete mystery. I have one thing to confess and isolate. After witnessing the activation, I devoted myself enthusiastically. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=61696