Jiang vs evolution theory on stability of the drow

Author: Jiang zall, the original link: https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show id=2309404304309541068773&mod=zwenzhang?

 Jiang vs evolution theory on stability of the drow

Both a and BCH differences

The BCH of this debate, one to support the “ABC team”, led by a bit, sent to the nChain CSW (Craig S Wright) led, and released a BSV client (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, Nakamoto vision). Both believe that BCH should become the 5 billion world currencies, but how to achieve this goal, two factions advocated by different means.

Bit, school believes that BCH should do fast iterative updates, meet market and application requirements, to attract more users, and ultimately to 5 billion world monetary target. CSW is BCH as currency, should maintain the underlying stability, only stable protocol in order to attract applications and enterprise, even advocated should be restored to the 0.1 edition of the original bitcoin, and locking protocol that Nakamoto bitcoin has been designed to take the underlying framework to the world currency (including Turing complete you can do, as long as the script) to achieve the goal of development in the upper.

Two, how to design the white paper bitcoin?

To discuss the “stability theory of vs evolution theory”, we should first understand, the white paper is how to design bitcoin?

The expansion often pointed out that the Core route sent in violation of the white paper target, while Core group countered that the EDA/DDA algorithm increases the difficulty of adjustment of BCH bifurcation in violation of the white paper, no white paper DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm.

In fact, in the white paper, don’t say DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, even the familiar “block 10 minutes a piece” not only in Chapter 4: proof of work (Proof-of-Work) in the design of “the average block n minutes a piece”:

The proof-of-work difficulty is determined by a moving average targeting an average number of blocks per hour. If they’re generated too fast, the difficulty increases.

Proof of work difficulty will adopt the method of moving average target to determine, to make every hour even difficult generation block for an average speed of a preset number. If the block is generated too fast, then the difficulty will increase.

Then in the seventh chapter: the recovery of hard disk space (Reclaiming Disk Space) for 10 minutes in a case:

…… If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes……

…… If we set the block rate generated for every 10 minutes a……

The white paper is very restrained, only the objective description, which is designed to better meet the target is more in line with the white paper, white paper. DDA BCH algorithm can adjust the difficulty, in the calculation of force major changes, let more to meet the average block time n minutes a piece, so more in line with the white paper.

In the 11 15 April is reached, we will be able to visually see what is called “DDA the difficulty of adjustment algorithm of BCH is more in line with the white paper”, if the two sides are from Bitcoin Core on a large number of simulation is reached to the Bitcoin force Cash, the Bitcoin Core block time will be prolonged, long time can not be restored. And the occurrence of severe congestion, and the Bitcoin Cash no matter how stress can change, the average 10 minutes a stable “”.

Three, how to meet the goals of the white paper?

We insist on the white paper bitcoin as “electronic cash system” and “world currency” target unchanged, the external environment changes, we must also change the way, in order to ensure the goal. As the above example, when the bifurcation occurs, Bitcoin Cash will be the original bitcoin “2016 block adjustment difficulty adjusting algorithm”, “modify DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm for each block adjustment once”.

Then, the protocol layer changes, whether to let the underlying bitcoin become unstable? If the proposition “stable bottom Protocol”, how should we treat such changes?

At present, we can see that there are a lot of people are in support of the “stability pact theory”, and the “stability pact” theory is simple, clear and easy to understand a great relationship. CSW even at the beginning of the more extreme “lock protocol theory”: the bitcoin back to version 0.1 and lock, this claim is actually unable to implement, bitcoin has done a lot of function and safety protocol modifications in the 0.1 edition, these modifications such as multi signature — has been impossible delete.

Why CSW would make such a claim cannot be implemented? This and the idea is simple and clear, easy to understand, publicity and support agreed on, but this does not mean the identity, this claim is correct.

Iron and steel movement the most typical example is Chinese in 1958, “we want to catch up with Britain and America”, “this year, steel production will double to 10 million 700 thousand tons of” the slogan is simple and powerful, in the propaganda and mobilize the masses has a great advantage, but in the end it caused a huge economic disaster.

A reasonable steel development plan must be complicated and trivial, with feedback adjustment, in most cases, must be amended according to the economic and market conditions, not even on the page, not to mention the “pithy slogan”.

Four, a stable on vs examples of evolution: DSV operation code

DSV operation code (OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY) is the focus of this debate is a typical hard bifurcation, vs bifurcation, stability theory of evolution on both sides.

The purpose of DSV is to introduce the external information block chain. The BCH block chain now is an isolated system, it does not know Brazil vs in Argentina is the result of the game, do not know how much of today’s stock price, do not even know their own price BCH. But if there is DSV, BCH users can agree how information is released, a data released by the main, signature, generated by BCH chain DSV operation code analysis data.

Such a two (or more) users can not through the third party organization (stock exchange, lottery center etc.), the establishment of intelligent game contract reliable in BCH chain. For example, both to bet on the Brazil vs Argentina game results, as long as the money into a multi signature address, then the result of the game was released after the signature, money will be automatically transferred to the winner’s address.

Further, this article can see the lightning: “Oracle real world data chain — the real world and the blockchain world open up to each other”.

“Evolution” that DSV enhanced the function of BCH, this is a very useful function, can bring more users and applications for BCH. While the “stability theory” that should not be to the upper application or need to modify the operation code, the underlying protocol, the underlying protocol should be kept stable, can not change.

Fifth, the view logic self consistent

When we are faced with two opposing views, we must first consider whether the self consistent logic view.

1, “evolution” is the logic of self consistent, BCH to be 50 million people in the world currency, so BCH should consider how to get more users, and enhance the chain function, is an effective means to attract more users and applications. This is also “cash” and “high frequency, high contact and high exposure using the logic of the same.

It is useful, if the wrong change, step iteration, run forward. The number of BCH users (and the total market value) BCE (Bitcoin Core) significantly behind the case, BCH increased the number of users, is the most important task.

2, the “stability theory” logic will first face a problem: what is the highest goal of BCH stability, or access to 5 billion users? Not necessarily a consistent goal. It is possible to stabilize and can obtain more users, but also has the potential to meet the market demand, increase the function to get more users. If a competitor to modify the underlying protocol, increase the function, can really get a large number of users, then we change or not?

If not, the final defeat in the competition, the user is zero, went extinct, and qualified to discuss right or wrong? If you have changed, it does not become a “evolution”?

3, in fact, Core refused expansion point of view, is a typical “stability theory”: bitcoin should try to keep to the center of the node should be kept small, transaction congestion can be resolved through a second layer network lightning.

BCH bifurcation point is the expansion, “evolution”: the user experience is very important, not against the two layer network, but now the block capacity is full, immediate need for expansion, otherwise it will lead to the loss of customers to other currency.

Six, how to deal with the development of the dispute?

“Evolution” is pretty logical, but the block chain, but there is a fatal problem: rapid iteration requires frequent changes in a decentralized system, who can make such a decision?

ETH can do rapid iteration, frequent changes, it is because the founder of Vitalik Buterin, can judge different amendments, Vitalik Buterin is a ETH system in “the world interests, when mixed into one” and “one”, the bitcoin system in “one”, is considered force.

But Vitalik Buterin and still have a huge difference, is not directly involved in the development, is not even involved in the development. I once imagined, all development changes are formed by the BIP proposal, then calculate force vote BIP proposal is passed, but after deduction, that is not practical.

That not only need to have a feasible counterexample enough: bit has suggested a small part of the miners, unified mining output to donate, but because the government forced tax shadow, by the community most people oppose the proposal and therefore abortion. But if the force can directly determine the development proposal, the mainland can be directly to the advantage of bit of work force, through the implementation of the proposal to the miners. This is not the community most people want to see results.

We know that the Yuan Yuan decided violence rules, rules determine all the rules, but this does not mean that “violence directly determines all rules, most rules are in the meta rules, all the result of the game. Stress is the bitcoin system “a”, is the final ruling power, but the final ruling power “does not mean” direct execution “.

Bitcoin specific development proposals should be decided by the development team and the game parties, only the parties can not tanlong, bitcoin faces bifurcate, it is the “final decision power” playing time.

Summary:

1, bitcoin in the same goal, but a means not at the same time, should be considered by force arbitration mechanism, without the necessary strength, reduced bifurcation.

2, the white paper bitcoin multi objective description, practice is focused on meeting the goals of the white paper.

3, if you insist on white paper target unchanged, in order to meet the constant goal, in the changing market environment, the inevitable changes of “the theory of evolution”.

4, the “stability theory” that is clear and simple, easy to understand, publicity and support, but does not mean that they are correct. “Stability” and “the number of users” in logic conflict.

5, “evolution” is inevitably in conflict with bifurcation, at this time should be by force to avoid unnecessary bifurcation bifurcation ruling, the.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *