其他参与者原话Red原帖 ↗我起初也这么想。但后来又说服自己改变了看法。
I thought this too at first. But then I convinced myself otherwise.
你这里又回到讨论现有的 Bitcoin 系统了吗？
Are you back to talking about the existing Bitcoin system here?
我说的是我描述的那个假想系统：如果网络不知道交易的金额和来源脉络，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。
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.
如果一个客户端直到最近才加入，让它确信一笔交易的历史来源有效的办法有两条：
If a client wasn't present until recently, the two ways to convince it that a transaction has a valid past is:
1) 给它看一直追溯到最初挖出的那枚比特币的完整历史。
1) Show it the entire history back to the original generated coin.
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。
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.
但我认为，如果网络不知道所有交易的金额和来源脉络，它就做不了 2)。
But if the network didn't know all the values and lineage of the transactions, it couldn't do 2), I don't think.
当前版本尚未建立逐条校对状态记录。来源核验、历史审校与当前译文校对是不同事项。
译文内容版本：ad4d2a0d833f。用于比对文本，不代表校对等级或更新时间。
请填写对应原文、现译文、建议译法和理由。复制后通过你联系本站作者的渠道提交；此处不会自动发送。
