Bitcointalk · Not a suggestion

中本聪,2010 年 8 月 12 日

SN-2250 已核对来源,附原文与上下文。

阅读语言
中文译文

我起初也这么想。但后来我说服了自己,并非如此。

你这里说的是在讲现有的 Bitcoin 系统吗?

我说的是我描述的那个假想系统:倘若网络不知道交易的金额和世系,它就无法验证并为其背书,那么客户端就得把历史一路保存到底。

倘若一个客户端直到最近才加入,让它确信一笔交易拥有有效过去的办法有两条: 1) 给它看回溯到最初生成硬币的完整历史。 2) 给它看回溯到一个足够深的区块的历史,然后相信:这么多节点都说此前的历史是正确的,那它就应该是正确的。

但倘若网络不知道所有交易的金额和世系,它就做不了 2),我认为。

ORIGINAL · 英文原文
I believe the clients would have to keep the entire history back to the original generated coins.  The fact that clients have to keep the entire history reduces the privacy benefit.  

I thought this too at first. But then I convinced myself otherwise.
Are you back to talking about the existing Bitcoin system here?

I was talking about in the hypothetical system I was describing, if the network doesn't know the values and lineage of the transactions, then it can't verify them and vouch for them, so the clients would have to keep the history all the way back.

If a client wasn't present until recently, the two ways to convince it that a transaction has a valid past is:
1) Show it the entire history back to the original generated coin.
2) Show it a history back to a thoroughly deep block, then trust that if so many nodes all said the history up to then was correct then it must be true.

But if the network didn't know all the values and lineage of the transactions, it couldn't do 2), I don't think.
来源
Bitcointalk 原始链接 ↗ 记录编号 SN-2250