[ad_1]
Eight years ago the last post was widely acknowledged by Bitcoin's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcointalk is the forum that Nakamoto has launched to promote the adoption of BTC, and there he has engaged in numerous conversations with those interested in his invention. Here Chepicap has collected its most relevant interactions.
Proof of zero knowledge and privacy
The coins for privacy are still very popular these days, but Monero, Dash, Zcash or DeepOnion were already in the imaginary shared in post on Bitcointalk. On August 10, 2010, a user opened a thread called "Not a suggestion", in which he shared his concerns about advertising the transaction history and asked if this type of information could be kept private.
Satoshi Nakamoto was quick to respond to the post, expressing his interest in the type of implementation suggested by the user, but also admitting that he was uncertain about how to apply a zero knowledge test to Bitcoin. This type of method can be used on the one hand to prove to a second that it knows a certain value, without revealing any information other than value.
Read more: The last message of Satoshi Nakamoto was today, 8 years ago. What did Satoshi say?
Click on the image to enlarge it
This is a very interesting topic. If a solution had been found, Bitcoin could be implemented in a much better, easier, and cheaper way.
Originally, a currency can only be a chain of signatures. With a timestamp service, old ones could be eliminated before there is too much fan-out backtrace, or coins could be stored individually or in denominations. It is the need to verify the absence of a double expense that requires a global understanding of all transactions.
The challenge is, how is it shown that there are no other expenses? It seems that a node must know all the transactions in order to verify it. If it only knows the in / outpoint hashes, it can not check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before. Do you have any idea about this?
It is difficult to think about how to apply zero-knowledge tests in this case.
We are trying to prove the absence of something, which seems to require everyone's knowledge and to check that something is not included.
After exchanging ideas with Satoshi Nakamoto and others for about 25 posts, the OP closed the discussion by admitting that he was eventually convinced of the postulates of the Bitcointalk founder:
It turns out that Satoshi was right. Or you need publicly validated transactions OR you need to save the entire transaction history so that the recipient can validate a private transaction. The reason eluded me at first, so it has not yet been shown in the thread. In private transactions, if you send money to yourself, you will be the owner of both sides of the verification. As such, you can increase the values to be anything you want. No one else is watching. If you throw away the story, nobody will know. Now you can transfer your inflated money to anyone. TO FAIL.
Satoshi is simple
Another post on Bitcointalk that is important for the participation of Satoshi, is one on a July 2010 thread titled "Scalability and transaction speed, in which a user asks if a bottleneck could take place when the network grows . Some Bitcointalk members tried to break it down, but he was still denying it, believing that the bit-banks were necessary in the network to ensure trust.
Click on the image to enlarge it
The current system in which each user is a network node is not the expected configuration for the large scale. It would be like every Usenet user running his own NNTP server. Design supports the fact that users are users only. The more expensive a node is, the less knots there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only execute transactions and do not generate.
Quote from: bytemaster on July 28th 2010, 08:59:42 PM
Also, 10 minutes are too long to verify that the payment is good. It must be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.
See the snack machine thread, outlined as a payment processor could verify the payments quite well, actually very well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less.
Satoshi then intervened, with a certain frankness towards the insistent user: "If you do not believe me or you do not understand it, I do not have time to try and convince you, I'm sorry& # 39 ;.
The final PO response could not grant more than this:I fully believe you and I have come to the conclusion (Sic) you did& # 39 ;.
Read more: The "comeback" of Satoshi Nakamoto from the day of his last message
On transaction costs and the future of Bitcoin
Nakamoto was trying to solve the doubts of a user who published in Bitcointalk in February 2010, trying to understand why his latest block reward was higher than usual 50 BTC. Satoshi explained how taxes worked, but perhaps unnoticed gave a dichotomous view of the future:
Click on the image to enlarge it
Right. Otherwise we could not have a finite limit of 21 million coins, because there should always be a minimum reward for the generation. In a few decades, when the reward becomes too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for the nodes. I'm sure that in 20 years there will be a very large volume of transactions or no volume.
Apparently, the Bitcoin miners would need volumes of transactions to increase strongly, in order to be able to afford processing when the limit of 21 million coins is reached. And this would only lead to two possible scenarios: mass adoption or dust recovery.
On server farms and nodes
Satoshi seemed to be quite certain that Bitcoin would grow to the point where server farms would be needed to manage the network profitably. Today it may seem obvious, but it must be remembered that the difficulty of the initial block allowed to use mining using only the CPU of a laptop. This was the case when someone questioned Bitcointalk about the scalability of the system, questioning its impracticability due to replication. The representation of future scenarios leads Satoshi to prophesy the possible role of Bitcoin farmers.
Click on the image to enlarge it
The design outlines a lightweight client that does not need the complete block chain. The design PDF is called Simplified Payment Verification. The lightweight client can send and receive transactions, but can not generate locks. It does not need to trust a node to verify payments, it can still verify them by itself.
The lightweight client is not yet implemented, but the plan is to implement it when necessary. For now, everyone runs only a complete network node.
I predict that there will never be more than 100 knots, probably less. It will reach a balance where it is not worth it for more nodes to participate in. The rest will consist of light clients, which could be millions.
At the equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm on a LAN.
On a different occasion, responding to another Bitcointalk user who was trying to determine why his transaction was taking forever, Nakamoto also affirmed his vision of the server farms managing the nodes.
Click on the image to enlarge it
It is not so much the download as the verification of all the signatures in all the blocks because the download takes a long time.
How long does the initial block download last? Slow down in half or do you have the same speed?
I thought of ways to make a more superficial control of most of the chain up to the last thousand blocks. It's possible, but it's a lot of work, and there are a lot of other things with higher priorities to work with.
Simplified payment verification is for light client-only users who only execute transactions and do not generate or participate in the node's network. They would not need to download blocks, only the hash chain, which is currently about 2 MB and very quick to verify (less than a second to check the entire chain). If the network becomes very large, like over 100,000 nodes, this is what we will use to allow common users to do transactions without being complete nodes. At that point, most users should start running client-only software, and only specialized server farms continue to manage complete network nodes, like consolidating the usenet network.
SPV is not yet implemented and will not be implemented until much later in the future, but all of the current implementation is designed to support it.
Meanwhile, sites like vekja.net and www.mybitcoin.com have tested account-based sites. Create an account on a website and keep your bitcoins on the account and transfer in and out. Creating an account on a website is much easier than installing and learning to use the software, and a more familiar way of doing it for most people. The only disadvantage is that you have to trust the site, but it's fine for pocket change amounts for micropayments and miscellaneous expenses. It's a simple way to get started and if you get larger amounts, you can upgrade to the actual bitcoin software.
As it became apparent later, Satoshi had been able to imagine a successful network taking into account the developments that were years down the road.
Read more: Meet the man who "became a friend of Satoshi Nakamoto" in 2018
Follow Chepicap now chirping, YouTube, Telegram and Facebook!
VIDEO: "Satoshi Nakamoto accepted my friend request"
[ad_2]Source link
