2017-6-8 14:23:31 SamsonMow:
I think questions is related to a post where someone erroneously stated that Blockstream patented SegWit. That is completely false. Blockstream has no patents pertaining to SegWit. As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors.
Moreover, Blockstream has made a patent pledge (read more here https://blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/) which allows anyone to utilize our patents freely for use under the Defensive Patent License (https://defensivepatentlicense.org/license), a free copyleft-style license for patents. Also, Blockstream will only use our patents defensively. Patents and patent trolls are a part of the technology landscape, however, through our patent strategy, we hope to protect open and permissionless innovation.
So to reiterate, SegWit is not patented. Blockstream does have two patents pending for technology we invented: Sidechains, and Confidential Transactions. Those two patents are offered for free usage under the DPL. That means you could start a company to develop Sidechains for companies and that’s fine; in fact there’s a startup called Chain (chain.com) that provides blockchain infrastructure for companies and they utilize our patented technology.
2017-6-8 16:43:34 SamsonMow:
Blockstream was invited to the meeting, but later un-invited. If we did attend the meeting, we likely would not have signed onto the agreement for several reasons. First, I don’t think that it is a good idea for Bitcoin protocol development to be decided by a small group of businesses behind closed doors. The entire point of Bitcoin is that it’s not controlled by any group or person. If a group of businesses can decide the direction of Bitcoin’s development, then it’s really the same as AliPay. Bitcoin is digital gold. It is valuable because people value the properties it has, which are the consensus rules: 21 million coin limit, 10 minute block times, 1 MB block size, halvings every four years and so on. If we start to change the properties of Bitcoin by committee, I have no doubt that Bitcoin will lose its value. Maybe the next point of contention is the halving which may impact some companies negatively, but if we change consensus rules for convenience, it will destroy Bitcoin.
Second, the New York meeting was an attempt to bypass the BIP process where proposals are discussed amongst the development community openly for everyone to see. The BIP process is the correct method for proposals to changes to Bitcoin, not private meetings.
Third, their agreement is technically unsound on many levels, which was to be expected because no developers were present to provide input. A hard-fork in 6 months? That’s going to be a disaster. You can’t rush protocol development just as you can’t tell two women to have 1 baby in 4.5 months. Bitcoin’s market cap is $44 billion USD now, why would we want to rush a hard-fork through with an inexperienced team? Keep in mind that Jeff Garzik, who seems to be the technical lead, has done very little Bitcoin development despite billing himself as a “Core Developer.” Hard-forks require everyone in the entire network to upgrade simultaneously or there will be a split. You cannot do a hard-fork when there is contention in the community - we’ll end up with two chains chains permanently. Finally, the agreement also requires signaling SegWit and a 2MB hard-fork at the same time, however, it is not technically possible to lock in a hard-fork with a soft-fork. Impossible. After SegWit is activated, any hard-fork can trigger can be disabled, so it’s completely pointless to try and activate both at the same time - any HF code in the SegWit2x client is just a suggestion.
The signatories to the agreement all agreed to activate SegWit along with 83.28% of the hashrate controlled by mining pools, so why not just activate SegWit using BIP141 (the current mining pool signaling method to activate)? Activating SegWit with a new client (SegWit2x) developed by an inexperienced team makes no sense. It’s like you want ice cream, and instead of going to Family Mart to buy one, you create a machine to make ice cream from scratch. If they want SegWit, they should just activate it now as it is, it’s so much simpler and safer.
2017-6-8 14:39:29 Charlie_Lee:
I think the recent consensus on the Barry Silbert agreement is flawed. There’s really no practical way to tie a SegWit softfork with a 2mb hardfork. And different sides expect different things from the agreement. I don’t have high hopes that this will result in something successful.
2017-6-8 16:37:31 SamsonMow:
If you read the wording of the HK agreement carefully, the Core developers present had agreed to work on a hard-fork, which they did. They did not make any commitment to implement it and make it happen - that is not the job of developers, nor is it even possible. The 400 or so Bitcoin Core developers work on writing and testing the best possible software for all of us so Bitcoin runs perfectly and can be used as a store of value. People choose the implementation of Bitcoin that they want to run - and most choose Bitcoin Core because it’s has the best team behind it. The developers have as much power over what client people choose to run as you do. It can be hard for people to understand, but there is no one “in charge” of Bitcoin; it’s a decentralized system.
2017-6-8 15:25:47 SamsonMow:
Well, I could always work on promoting Litecoin with Charlie! :)
I should point out that Blockstream is actually doing quite well. Our business is providing blockchain platforms for enterprises and we have a few interesting projects underway already. Also, having raised over $80 million USD from Reid Hoffman, 李嘉诚's Horizons Ventures, AXA Strategic Ventures, Khosla Ventures, and Digital Garage, we have a very long runway.
那么我可以和Charlie一起推广莱特币！:)
我应该指出Blockstream目前运营良好。我们的业务是为企业提供区块链平台，并且还有一些有趣的项目已经在进行中。还从Reid Hoffman、 Li Ka-shing’s Horizons Ventures、安盛战略投资、科斯拉风投、 Digital Garage筹集到8千万美元的投资，我们还有很长的路要走。
2017-6-8 16:47:53 SamsonMow:
I’ve explained before that SegWit is not patented. If you don’t believe me, you can search the USPTO (https://www.uspto.gov/) and show me the SegWit patent :) Any UASF is a soft-fork, not a hard-fork, it’s important that you understand that.
The UASF is a movement from Bitcoin users around the world, it’s not a Bitcoin Core lead initiatve - in fact a few prominent Core contributors are against it, and even Blockstream’s CTO Greg Maxwell is against it. The BIP148 UASF i’s not something that can be stopped so the safest way to avert a temporary chain split is to either activate SegWit before August 1st or to enforce BIP148 after August 1st, that is why I am supporting it.
Sidechains are open source tech, with the patent available for free use. How exactly would we profit from 1 MB blocks on the main chain? RSK is a sidechain. Paul Sztorc’s Drivechain project is a sidechain. You can make a sidechain too. Blockstream’s business model is providing enterprise services. It would be appreciated if you could please follow that simple logic so we can all move on from this conspiracy theory.
2017-6-8 16:49:10 SamsonMow:
SegWit is actually a compromise. It was a fix for malleability, which prevents Layer 2 scaling like Lightning and also makes it harder to do things like Smart Contracts (main selling point in Ethereum), but also allows for the block size is be increased up to 4 MB - depending on the types of transactions that go into a block. If the question is why can’t Core compromise and add a hard-fork into SegWit? That’s because a hard-fork requires everyone to upgrade simultaneously and Core cannot force people to do that. It’s an impossible compromise. It’s like me saying I’ll do something for you if you get me a date with Taylor Swift - you probably can’t do that.
Samson: Moreover, there should be no compromises at the protocol level over safety and stability of the network. A soft-fork is backwards compatible and opt-in - that’s far better than a hard-fork that requires massive preparation from the entire ecosystem around the world. Soft-forks are also Satoshi Nakamoto’s preferred method to upgrade the network. Originally he used soft-forks but once he learned that things could be done with soft-forks he used them exclusively. Imagine your hard was bitten by a dog and you went to a doctor. The doctor says he will give you a Tetanus shot and put in some stitches - that’s a soft-fork like SegWit. While you’re talking to the doctor, someone who is not a doctor shouts from the hallway that you should cut your hand off - that’s a hard-fork. :)
Core has done an excellent job of maintaining and scaling the network for the past 7-8 years. Keep in mind that there’s no one to ask for help - this was and is cutting edge technology. I think that anyone thinking of abandoning the Bitcoin Core client doesn't fully understand the work they are doing - Bitcoin isn’t an app on your phone, it’s a protocol like TCP/IP. It’s very complex work. Other teams have tried to modify and maintain Bitcoin Core, such as Bitcoin Unlimited, but with disastrous results. The entire network of BU nodes crashed 3 times. Not once, not twice, but three times, because they were incapable. It takes years of dedication and effort to become proficient in Bitcoin development.
2017-6-9 12:10:47 SamsonMow:
If you look at the UASF website you can see that there is a lot of support actually. http://www.uasf.co/. Just a few days ago one of the biggest V P N providers posted a statement saying they support BIP148 and will stop working with BitPay if they didn’t support 148 as well. As we get closer and closer to August 1st it will be more clear how much support there is - but to answer your question, “User” is coins, nodes, businesses, and hashrate (Slush Pool recently started to allow miners to signal for 148). Bitfinex is working on a prediction marketplace for BIP148 as well, so soon we will get a good idea of how much users value Bitcoin on the BIP148 chain - which will help miners to decide which chain they will mine on.
如果你看过UASF的网站，你会看到实际上UASF有很多支持。 http://www.uasf.co/。就在几天之前，最大的V P N供应商之一发表声明，表示他们会支持BIP148，如果BitPay不支持148，他们将停止与BitPay之间的合作。随着我们越来越接近8月1日，我们会更清楚UASF有多少支持 - 但是为了回答你的问题，“用户”是硬币，节点，企业和哈希率（Slush Pool最近开始允许矿工为148发信号）。 Bitfinex还对BIP148的市场进行了预测，所以我们很快就会了解到用户对BIP148链上的比特币的评价是什么，这将有助于矿工决定他们将在哪一条链上挖矿
Did you mean when UASF BIP148 happens on August 1st, some people will execute a hard-fork at that time? I’m not worried about that because they would just be forked-off the network - they need everyone to hard-fork for the coins to have value and no one is ready for a hard-fork at this time. My interpretation of the chart is that more users are starting to run nodes - it’s also similar to mining. I’m seeing a lot of users placing orders with Avalon so they can mine on the 148 chain.
I don’t think there will be any POW change unless the BIP148 chain gets attacked. POW was only discussed when Jihan was making threats that he would kill any minority chain. When people are attacked or perceived a threat, they will react - developers can only code, so their natural reaction was to talk about a POW change. However, I don’t think anyone wants a POW change - that is a nuclear option when left with no choice.
2017-6-8 16:08:45 SamsonMow:
SW2M is just a political vehicle. If SW2M was just lowering the threshold from 95% to 80% that could be okay, but the problem is they want to entangle SegWit activation with a hard-fork, which is complex, but also impossible. SW2M is a convoluted way to just activate SegWit. It would be simpler if they just activated with BIP141 (95% threshold MASF) because the code is already there.
2017-6-8 16:07:41 SamsonMow:
The problem with these agreements is that everyone interprets them differently. For the HK agreement, many interpreted it to mean the 5 devs would make a hard-fork happen, when the wording, and the understanding of the devs was that they would work on the research, which they did. For the NYC agreement it was even more chaotic; asking 3 companies that signed on would get you 3 different answers: SW first, HF first, and SW/HF at the same time. Anyhow, the NYC agreement was useful in that it provided a venue for everyone to publicly state that they do in fact support SegWit. So now we just need them to activate it before August 1st.
2017-6-8 14:42:49 Charlie_Lee:
SW2M is still being developed. I’m not sure what the difference is, but I think they want to tie a 2MB hardfork with SegWit in some way. That doesn’t make sense to me.
2017-6-8 14:41:53 Charlie_Lee:
I think the HK agreement was SegWit first and 2M later. And some people feel like the Core developers that signed the agreement did not hold up to their end of the bargain. So the NY agreement is to force SegWit and 2M as one thing. IMO, there’s no reason why people need to force 2M hardfork this way. Just do SegWit and get the scaling benefits and do 2MB if needed later.
2017-6-9 00:50:52 SamsonMow:
Hi Keeking, thanks for supporting Core! I think I touched on this in another question, but negotiating on protocol development isn't the best idea. The “problem” has always been framed in terms of a hard-fork to 2MB but from a technical perspective, it doesn’t make sense. SegWit is a 2MB block size increase (maybe more) and accomplishes the same goal. It appears that Core is unreasonable because they won’t compromise, but the compromise was unreasonable to begin with. If they have a superior technical solution, should they decide to not use it in order to make everyone happy? Is that the Bitcoin that you want to use and store your wealth it? I sure wouldn’t want that.
你好Keeking，感谢你支持Core！我想我在另一个问题上谈到过这点，但是为协议开发进行谈判并不是最好的方法。 “问题”一直是用硬分叉实现2MB扩容，但从技术的角度来说，这是没有意义的。 SegWit是一个2MB的区块大小增加（也许更多），可以实现相同的目标。看起来，Core 不肯让步很不合理，但妥协一开始就是不合理的。如果他们有一个非常好的技术解决方案，他们是否会决定不使用它来让大家开心？那是你想要用来储存你的财富的比特币吗？我很肯定你不会想要的
Increasing the block size is also a terrible method to scale. Let's say everyone in Japan wants to make 3 tx per day. That is 127 million people x 3 = 381 million transactions. 381 million transactions is roughly 190 GB and as there are 144 blocks a day, that needs 1.3 GB blocks. Assuming 2 seconds to validate a 1 MB block, those 1.3 GB blocks need 43 minutes to validate, 33 minutes longer than the block interval.
增加区块大小也不是一种扩容的好方法。假设日本每个人每天要完成三笔交易。1.27亿人x 3 = 3.81亿笔交易。 3.81亿笔交易大约是190GB，每天有144个区块，需要1.3GB的区块。假设 1 MB的区块需要2s来验证，这些1.3 GB的区块需要43分钟才能验证，比块间隔长33分钟。
Also, increasing the blocksize variable has other costs. It reduces decentralization and the ability for people to run their own nodes. That’s the entire point of Bitcoin, that users can validate their own transactions on the blockchain without trusting a third party. If we make it too hard for people to do that, then why do we even need Bitcoin? There are far more efficient ways to move money around. A bump to a 2MB block through a hard-fork would require the work everyone has done to prepare for SegWit to be thrown out and a new waiting period to code up a hard-fork and giving the network time to upgrade. Core is not against a hard-fork sometime to increase block size, but it’s a question of when - the Core roadmap even mentions a hard-fork a some point. However, if they can gain scale through less intrusive methods first, that should be the everyone's preference.
此外，增加区块大小还有其他成本。它减少了去中心化和人们运行自己的节点的能力。这就是比特币存在的意义，用户可以在不使用第三方的情况下验证自己的交易。如果这一点很难达成，为什么我们还需要比特币呢？我们有更有效的方法来转移资金。通过硬分叉实现2MB的扩容会让每个人为SegWit做的准备工作变成无用功，并且需要新的等待时间来编码硬叉，并给网络时间进行升级。Core并不是反对通过硬分叉增加区块大小，但是问题是什么时候 – Core的路线图甚至提到了硬分叉。然而，如果他们可以先通过侵入性较小的方法完成扩容，这应该是每个人都想要的。
2017-6-8 14:44:06 Charlie_Lee:
Litecoin development will likely remain closely tied to Bitcoin development. Litecoin will likely deploy some new features first just like we did SegWit. We have no plans currently to do something totally different than what Bitcoin developers are currently working on.
您好，我想请问下莱特币今年下半年的发展计划。市值上应该没办法超越比特了，ETH有更多的应用价值，又是ICO鼻祖。那莱特币对自己的定位是什么呢？会在技术上进行更多尝试吗？ShaolinFry属于你们的开发团队成员吗？Atomic Swaps已经进入测试阶段了吗？其实，BB了这么多我就想说：What exactly will you do to make litecoin great?
PS:所有的币中，我最喜欢litecoin这个名字，希望它不要成为“the unbearable lightness of being".
登录 或
当前对于比特币的扩容问题的讨论愈发激烈，社区内已存在着多种不同的解决方案，隔离见证是其中的解决方案之一。
5月23日，Consensus 2017上，部分社区代表共同签署了比特币协议升级方案：隔离见证和2MB扩容将同时进行部署。但似乎，这份协议并不被部分Core支持者们认同。最新的比特币协议升级方案是否能够成行？
社区共同的目标是：比特币能够良性发展。然而在讨论中依然存在关于比特币扩容方案不同层次的讨论，其中也不乏误解，本期的AMA邀请了三位支持隔离见证的嘉宾就隔离见证的各个方面与大家交流探讨。
本期嘉宾：
缪永权（Samson Mow）
缪永权（Samson Mow）是Blockstream的首席战略官（Chief Strategy Officer），主要负责拓展国际市场，市场战略，以及产品开发。在加入Blockstream之前，缪永权是BTCC的首席运营官，BTCC是世界上最大的数字货币交易所和最大的矿池之一。缪永权除了在比特币行业拥有很大的影响力，他也是游戏业界资深人士和企业家，在发展创业公司的以及管理大型开发团队上都有着丰富的经验。在2011年，他以“通过游戏来激发世界各地人们的想象力”为理念创立了Pixelmatic。公司把焦点放在创作真正优秀的社交游戏，更多地鼓励玩家们利用社交网络更多地联系。
李启威（Charlie Lee）
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。
Johnson Lau
Bitcoin Core核心贡献者、香港中文大学学者、巴比特专栏作者。
欢迎来问！
打赏
查看全部打赏
39条回复
想问下另外两位嘉宾，你们都是有丰富经验的开发者，那么从开发者角度，对最近达成的共识协议有什么看法呢？
在业内绝大部分公司和算力，已在纽约共识中达成一致，准备激活SW+2M的情况下，
为何Core的部分死硬分子，还坚持要在8月1日，以UASF的方式激活SW？
Core难道不知道在没有足够共识情况下的分叉（哪怕是软分叉），就意味着分裂？
Core到底是想激活SW？还是想分裂比特币？
Core想要的SW，在纽约共识中没有吗？
还是说Blockstream-Core的真实意图，并不是要SW，而是不要2M？
想要把比特币主链永久锁死在1M，好让Blockstream的侧链盈利？
另外，请缪永权讲讲Blockstream的SW专利是怎么回事
《segwit的专利信息被人找出来了》
我认为SW2M方案，应该是先激活SW软分叉，然后再达到充分共识下激活2MB硬分叉。只要某矿业退步同意先激活SW，一切都好说。SW一直不能被激活，交易ID不固定，是制约比特币技术向前发展的“三体智子”。SW激活后的LN闪电网络能上万笔/s根本上解决处理能力不足，而RSK能实现智能合约弥补在智能领域的暂时不足。
整理了三个问题：
1，请问您们怎么看香港圆桌共识和纽约融合共识，有何本质区别？
宏观来看都是先SW再2M的思想路线，而不是硬扩支持者的先去2MB或其它大小硬分叉。前者只是五个核心开发者签的，后者则没有核心开发者参与。前者说充分币圈共识下再HF，后者好像是没有说2M的激活门槛。应该是采用融合分叉，直接延时确定节点足够多时直接激活。
2，Core的SW隔离验证，与纽约融合共识中的SW2M中的SW有何本质区别？
据了解激活门槛不同一个95%一个仅仅只有80%，另外BIP9区块投票标识位不同前者是0010即2，而后者是0100即4。我觉得投票0110即6就可两者都投票支持。另外可有个15%算力先两者都不去投，等一个80%一个65%时再一起都投，便可都到激活门槛。两SW便会同时激活。两个都是隔离验证，应该可以兼容吧。
3，UASF目前支持情况如何？具体是由哪些东西来代表“U用户”，全节点，币量还是那128家支持SW的币圈企业商家项目的支持声明(BitQt)，另外若在UASF激活时，一些想“分裂”的矿业，去趁机进行硬分叉拒绝软分叉，那么该怎么应对？是否有改POW应对的计划或者会中止SW软分叉？
请问下面这个图具体怎么解读？谢谢解答。
1、SamsonMow先生，Johnson_Lau先生：我曾经是core的忠诚支持者，对于core的各种方案或决定都非常认可和支持，并且非常反感日趋中心化的矿业。但是随着事态的发展，我对core过分强硬的态度越来越难以理解，就我观察，矿业事实上已降低姿态，很大程度上已作出了妥协，并非常渴望能够通过与core核心成员沟通来解决当前的僵局，LTC就是一个很好的例子。但是哪怕一次，我也没有看到core核心成员释放出可以协商的信号，并用删帖禁言等方式抹掉社区内的异议。对于矿业和各大初创公司而言，目前的诉求仅仅是主链扩容至2m，该诉求合情合理，无任何出格藏私之处，请问core为何对该诉求甚至连谈判的意愿都没有？甚至于曾经支持core的各大公司例如bitfury、BTCC等公司也都倒向硬分一方。如果说硬分叉有风险，其风险能大过UASF？为什么事到如今BS和core宁愿社区分裂也不愿像LTC一样，以“圆桌”的形式与矿工以及各大商家沟通呢？
2，Charlie_Lee先生：我持有一定比例的LTC，并非常关注LTC未来的发展，目前LTC的发展有目共睹，但是不论是智能合约，还是LN、MAST还是CT等技术，LTC有的，BTC也都会有，这样子无论LTC如果发展都摆脱不了BTC复制品的影子，很难与同级别币种竞争，该预期目前也都反应在币价上，请问您能否谈谈您对该问题的看法？LTC未来能否做出与众不同的改动？
PS:所有的币中，我最喜欢litecoin这个名字，希望它不要成为“the unbearable lightness of being".