6. Incentivo
Por convención, la primera transacción en un bloque es una transacción especial con la que comienza una moneda nueva, propiedad del creador del bloque. Esto añade un incentivo a los nodos para soportar la red, y proporciona una forma de poner las monedas en circulación, dado que no hay autoridad central que las distribuya. La adición estable de una constante de monedas nuevas es análoga a los mineros de oro, que consumen recursos para añadir oro a la circulación. En nuestro caso, es tiempo de CPU y electricidad lo que se gasta.
El incentivo también se basa en las comisiones por transacción. Si el valor de salida de una transacción es menor que el valor de entrada, la diferencia es una comisión por transacción que se añade al valor de incentivo del bloque que contiene la transacción. Una vez que un número predeterminado de monedas ha entrado en circulación, el incentivo puede evolucionar hacia comisiones de transacción y estar completamente libre de inflación.
El incentivo puede ayudar a que los nodos permanezcan honestos. Si un atacante codicioso fuera capaz de reunir más potencia CPU que la de todos los nodos honestos, tendría que escoger entre usarla para defraudar a la gente robándoles los pagos recibidos, o usarla para generar nuevas monedas. Debe encontrar más rentable respetar las reglas, esas reglas que le favorecen
entregándole más monedas nuevas que a todos los demás en conjunto, que socavar el sistema y la validez de su propia riqueza.
6. Incentivo
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/379
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Por convención, la primera transacción en un bloque es una transacción especial con la que comienza una moneda nueva, propiedad del creador del bloque. Esto añade un incentivo a los nodos para soportar la red, y proporciona una forma de poner las monedas en circulación, dado que no hay autoridad central que las distribuya. La adición estable de una constante de monedas nuevas es análoga a los mineros de oro, que consumen recursos para añadir oro a la circulación. En nuestro caso, es tiempo de CPU y electricidad lo que se gasta.
El incentivo también se basa en las comisiones por transacción. Si el valor de salida de una transacción es menor que el valor de entrada, la diferencia es una comisión por transacción que se añade al valor de incentivo del bloque que contiene la transacción. Una vez que un número predeterminado de monedas ha entrado en circulación, el incentivo puede evolucionar hacia comisiones de transacción y estar completamente libre de inflación.
El incentivo puede ayudar a que los nodos permanezcan honestos. Si un atacante codicioso fuera capaz de reunir más potencia CPU que la de todos los nodos honestos, tendría que escoger entre usarla para defraudar a la gente robándoles los pagos recibidos, o usarla para generar nuevas monedas. Debe encontrar más rentable respetar las reglas, esas reglas que le favorecen
entregándole más monedas nuevas que a todos los demás en conjunto, que socavar el sistema y la validez de su propia riqueza.
6. Incentivo
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/379
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
6. Incentivo
Por convención, la primera transacción en un bloque es una transacción especial con la que comienza una moneda nueva, propiedad del creador del bloque. Esto añade un incentivo a los nodos para soportar la red, y proporciona una forma de poner…
Por convención, la primera transacción en un bloque es una transacción especial con la que comienza una moneda nueva, propiedad del creador del bloque. Esto añade un incentivo a los nodos para soportar la red, y proporciona una forma de poner…
7. Recuperación de espacio de disco
Cuando la última transacción de una moneda está enterrada bajo suficientes bloques, las
transacciones que se han gastado antes que ella se pueden descartar para ahorrar espacio de disco.
Para facilitar esto sin romper el hash del bloque, las transacciones son hasheadas en un Árbol de Merkle [7][2][5], incluyendo solo la raíz en el hash del bloque. Los bloques viejos pueden compactarse podando ramas del árbol. Los hashes interiores no necesitan ser guardados.
Una cabecera de bloque sin transacciones pesaría unos 80 bytes. Si suponemos que los bloques se generan cada 10 minutos, 80 bytes × 6 × 24 × 365 = 4.2MB por año. Siendo habitual la venta de ordenadores con 2GB de RAM en 2008, y con la Ley de Moore prediciendo un crecimiento de
1.2GB anual, el almacenamiento no debería suponer un problema incluso si hubiera que conservar en la memoria las cabeceras de bloque.
7. Recuperación de espacio de disco
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/380
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Cuando la última transacción de una moneda está enterrada bajo suficientes bloques, las
transacciones que se han gastado antes que ella se pueden descartar para ahorrar espacio de disco.
Para facilitar esto sin romper el hash del bloque, las transacciones son hasheadas en un Árbol de Merkle [7][2][5], incluyendo solo la raíz en el hash del bloque. Los bloques viejos pueden compactarse podando ramas del árbol. Los hashes interiores no necesitan ser guardados.
Una cabecera de bloque sin transacciones pesaría unos 80 bytes. Si suponemos que los bloques se generan cada 10 minutos, 80 bytes × 6 × 24 × 365 = 4.2MB por año. Siendo habitual la venta de ordenadores con 2GB de RAM en 2008, y con la Ley de Moore prediciendo un crecimiento de
1.2GB anual, el almacenamiento no debería suponer un problema incluso si hubiera que conservar en la memoria las cabeceras de bloque.
7. Recuperación de espacio de disco
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/380
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
7. Recuperación de espacio de disco
Cuando la última transacción de una moneda está enterrada bajo suficientes bloques, las
transacciones que se han gastado antes que ella se pueden descartar para ahorrar espacio de disco.
Para facilitar esto sin romper…
Cuando la última transacción de una moneda está enterrada bajo suficientes bloques, las
transacciones que se han gastado antes que ella se pueden descartar para ahorrar espacio de disco.
Para facilitar esto sin romper…
8. Verificación de pagos simplificada SPV
Es posible verificar pagos sin ejecutar un nodo plenamente en red. El usuario solo necesita tener una copia de las cabeceras de bloque de la cadena más larga de proof-of-work, que puede conseguir solicitándola a los nodos de red hasta estar convencido de que tiene la cadena más larga, y obtener la rama Merkle, que enlaza la transacción con el bloque en que está sellado en el tiempo.
El usuario no puede comprobar la transacción por sí mismo pero, al enlazarla a un lugar en la cadena, puede ver que un nodo de la red la ha aceptado, y los bloques añadidos posteriormente confirman además que la red la ha aceptado.
Como tal, la verificación es fiable en tanto que los nodos honestos controlen la red, pero es más vulnerable si un atacante domina la red. Mientras que los nodos de red pueden verificar las transacciones por sí mismos, el método simplificado puede ser engañado por transacciones fabricadas por un atacante, en tanto el atacante pueda continuar dominando la red. Una estrategia para protegerse contra esto podría ser aceptar alertas de los nodos de red cuando detecten un bloque no válido, sugiriendo al software del usuario que descargue el bloque entero y las transacciones con aviso para confirmar la inconsistencia. Los negocios que reciban pagos con frecuencia seguramente preferirán tener sus propios nodos ejecutándose para tener más seguridad independiente y verificación más rápida.
8. Verificación de pagos simplificada SPV
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/381
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Es posible verificar pagos sin ejecutar un nodo plenamente en red. El usuario solo necesita tener una copia de las cabeceras de bloque de la cadena más larga de proof-of-work, que puede conseguir solicitándola a los nodos de red hasta estar convencido de que tiene la cadena más larga, y obtener la rama Merkle, que enlaza la transacción con el bloque en que está sellado en el tiempo.
El usuario no puede comprobar la transacción por sí mismo pero, al enlazarla a un lugar en la cadena, puede ver que un nodo de la red la ha aceptado, y los bloques añadidos posteriormente confirman además que la red la ha aceptado.
Como tal, la verificación es fiable en tanto que los nodos honestos controlen la red, pero es más vulnerable si un atacante domina la red. Mientras que los nodos de red pueden verificar las transacciones por sí mismos, el método simplificado puede ser engañado por transacciones fabricadas por un atacante, en tanto el atacante pueda continuar dominando la red. Una estrategia para protegerse contra esto podría ser aceptar alertas de los nodos de red cuando detecten un bloque no válido, sugiriendo al software del usuario que descargue el bloque entero y las transacciones con aviso para confirmar la inconsistencia. Los negocios que reciban pagos con frecuencia seguramente preferirán tener sus propios nodos ejecutándose para tener más seguridad independiente y verificación más rápida.
8. Verificación de pagos simplificada SPV
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/381
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
8. Verificación de pagos simplificada SPV
Es posible verificar pagos sin ejecutar un nodo plenamente en red. El usuario solo necesita tener una copia de las cabeceras de bloque de la cadena más larga de proof-of-work, que puede conseguir solicitándola a…
Es posible verificar pagos sin ejecutar un nodo plenamente en red. El usuario solo necesita tener una copia de las cabeceras de bloque de la cadena más larga de proof-of-work, que puede conseguir solicitándola a…
9. Combinando y dividiendo valor.
Aunque sería posible manipular monedas individualmente, no sería manejable hacer una transacción para cada céntimo en una transferencia. Para permitir que el valor se divida y combine, las transacciones contienen múltiples entradas y salidas. Normalmente habrá, o bien una entrada simple de una transacción anterior mayor, o bien múltiples entradas combinando pequeñas cantidades, y como máximo dos salidas: una para el pago y otra devolviendo el cambio, si lo hubiera, al emisor.
Cabe señalar que la diseminación de control, donde una transacción depende de varias transacciones, y esas transacciones dependen de muchas más, no supone aquí un problema. No existe la necesidad de extraer una copia completa e independiente del historial de una transacción.
9. Combinando y dividiendo valor
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/382
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Aunque sería posible manipular monedas individualmente, no sería manejable hacer una transacción para cada céntimo en una transferencia. Para permitir que el valor se divida y combine, las transacciones contienen múltiples entradas y salidas. Normalmente habrá, o bien una entrada simple de una transacción anterior mayor, o bien múltiples entradas combinando pequeñas cantidades, y como máximo dos salidas: una para el pago y otra devolviendo el cambio, si lo hubiera, al emisor.
Cabe señalar que la diseminación de control, donde una transacción depende de varias transacciones, y esas transacciones dependen de muchas más, no supone aquí un problema. No existe la necesidad de extraer una copia completa e independiente del historial de una transacción.
9. Combinando y dividiendo valor
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/382
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
9. Combinando y dividiendo valor
Aunque sería posible manipular monedas individualmente, no sería manejable hacer una
transacción para cada céntimo en una transferencia. Para permitir que el valor se divida y
combine, las transacciones contienen múltiples…
Aunque sería posible manipular monedas individualmente, no sería manejable hacer una
transacción para cada céntimo en una transferencia. Para permitir que el valor se divida y
combine, las transacciones contienen múltiples…
10. Privacidad
El modelo tradicional de banca consigue un nivel de privacidad limitando el acceso a la
información a las partes implicadas y el tercero de confianza. La necesidad de anunciar públicamente todas las transacciones excluye este método, pero aún así se puede mantener la privacidad rompiendo el flujo de información en otro punto: manteniendo las claves públicas anónimas. El público puede ver que alguien está enviando una cantidad a otro alguien, pero sin que haya información vinculando la transacción con nadie. Esto es similar al nivel de información
que comunican las bolsas de valores, donde el tiempo y tamaño de las operaciones individuales, la "cinta", son hechos públicos, pero sin decir quiénes fueron las partes.
Como cortafuegos adicional, debería usarse un nuevo par de claves en cada transacción para evitar que se relacionen con un propietario común. Con las transacciones multientrada será inevitable algún tipo de vinculación, pues revelan necesariamente que sus entradas pertenecieron al mismo propietario. El riesgo es que si se revela la identidad del propietario de una clave, la vinculación podría revelar otras transacciones que pertenecieron al mismo propietario.
10. Privacidad
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/383
Tercero de confianza.
https://thelawdictionary.org/trusted-third-party/
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
El modelo tradicional de banca consigue un nivel de privacidad limitando el acceso a la
información a las partes implicadas y el tercero de confianza. La necesidad de anunciar públicamente todas las transacciones excluye este método, pero aún así se puede mantener la privacidad rompiendo el flujo de información en otro punto: manteniendo las claves públicas anónimas. El público puede ver que alguien está enviando una cantidad a otro alguien, pero sin que haya información vinculando la transacción con nadie. Esto es similar al nivel de información
que comunican las bolsas de valores, donde el tiempo y tamaño de las operaciones individuales, la "cinta", son hechos públicos, pero sin decir quiénes fueron las partes.
Como cortafuegos adicional, debería usarse un nuevo par de claves en cada transacción para evitar que se relacionen con un propietario común. Con las transacciones multientrada será inevitable algún tipo de vinculación, pues revelan necesariamente que sus entradas pertenecieron al mismo propietario. El riesgo es que si se revela la identidad del propietario de una clave, la vinculación podría revelar otras transacciones que pertenecieron al mismo propietario.
10. Privacidad
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/383
Tercero de confianza.
https://thelawdictionary.org/trusted-third-party/
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
10. Privacidad
El modelo tradicional de banca consigue un nivel de privacidad limitando el acceso a la
información a las partes implicadas y el tercero de confianza. La necesidad de anunciar públicamente todas las transacciones excluye este método,…
El modelo tradicional de banca consigue un nivel de privacidad limitando el acceso a la
información a las partes implicadas y el tercero de confianza. La necesidad de anunciar públicamente todas las transacciones excluye este método,…
12. Conclusión
Hemos propuesto un sistema para realizar transacciones electrónicas sin depender de confianza.
Comenzamos con el marco habitual de monedas creadas a partir de firmas digitales, lo cual permite un firme control de la propiedad, pero que está incompleto sin una forma de prevenir el doble gasto. Para resolver esto, hemos propuesto una red peer-to-peer usando proof-of-work para realizar un registro público de las transacciones que rápidamente se hace computacionalmente inviable de cambiar, para un atacante, si la mayoría de la potencia CPU, está controlada por nodos honestos. La red es robusta dada su simplicidad no estructurada. Los nodos trabajan todos a la vez, precisando poca coordinación. No necesitan ser identificados dado que los mensajes no se envían a ningún lugar en particular, y solo necesitan ser emitidos en base a "mejor esfuerzo". Los nodos pueden abandonar y reincorporarse a la red a voluntad, aceptando la cadena de prueba de trabajo (PoW) como prueba de lo que ha sucedido mientras estaban ausentes. Votan con su potencia CPU, expresando su aceptación de los bloques válidos trabajando en extenderlos y descartando los bloques no válidos al rechazar trabajar en ellos. Cualesquiera reglas e incentivos necesarios pueden ser aplicados con este mecanismo de consenso.
12. Conclusión
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/384
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Hemos propuesto un sistema para realizar transacciones electrónicas sin depender de confianza.
Comenzamos con el marco habitual de monedas creadas a partir de firmas digitales, lo cual permite un firme control de la propiedad, pero que está incompleto sin una forma de prevenir el doble gasto. Para resolver esto, hemos propuesto una red peer-to-peer usando proof-of-work para realizar un registro público de las transacciones que rápidamente se hace computacionalmente inviable de cambiar, para un atacante, si la mayoría de la potencia CPU, está controlada por nodos honestos. La red es robusta dada su simplicidad no estructurada. Los nodos trabajan todos a la vez, precisando poca coordinación. No necesitan ser identificados dado que los mensajes no se envían a ningún lugar en particular, y solo necesitan ser emitidos en base a "mejor esfuerzo". Los nodos pueden abandonar y reincorporarse a la red a voluntad, aceptando la cadena de prueba de trabajo (PoW) como prueba de lo que ha sucedido mientras estaban ausentes. Votan con su potencia CPU, expresando su aceptación de los bloques válidos trabajando en extenderlos y descartando los bloques no válidos al rechazar trabajar en ellos. Cualesquiera reglas e incentivos necesarios pueden ser aplicados con este mecanismo de consenso.
12. Conclusión
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/384
Bitcoin: un sistema de efectivo electrónico p2p
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
BitCoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/353
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
12. Conclusión
Hemos propuesto un sistema para realizar transacciones electrónicas sin depender de confianza.
Comenzamos con el marco habitual de monedas creadas a partir de firmas digitales, lo cual permite un firme control de la propiedad, pero que…
Hemos propuesto un sistema para realizar transacciones electrónicas sin depender de confianza.
Comenzamos con el marco habitual de monedas creadas a partir de firmas digitales, lo cual permite un firme control de la propiedad, pero que…
Since 2007. At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn't resist to keep thinking about it. Much more of the work was designing than coding.
Users can link identity.
See Section 10 of my Whitepaper.
At no point is identity removed from bitcoin. Rather, in the new privacy model of bitcoin identities are exchanged where needed between individual parties. Today, there are laws for cash and the transaction of money using cash. Because you're using cash does not mean that you can avoid recording identity.
Know your customer requirements, customer due diligence and anti-money laundering laws all cover cash.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-high-value-dealer-registration
Whether it is a single transaction or multiples, where the value is €10,000 or more, the person transacting would require registration as a high-value dealer.
This even applies if you make instalments or payments on account. Bitcoin is a cash money system. Consequently, all of the money laundering regulations concerning cash will apply.
If you're receiving small amounts of money, not only micro-payments but even if you're running a coffee shop or restaurant, there will be no requirement to register as a high-value dealer. A real estate broker offering commercial leases could easily exceed this amount and thus have to require registration.
The majority of exchanges made using bitcoin will not require registration. Any exchange or custodial service will require registration. Local bitcoin and related organisations will require registration. When people go wrong is to think that normal everyday coffee shops and related organisations will require registration.
The need for trust is mitigated using registered identity based keys and hierarchies of linked keys.
CSW
Mar 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1585249153076800?thread_ts=1585249153.076800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2355
Users can link identity.
See Section 10 of my Whitepaper.
At no point is identity removed from bitcoin. Rather, in the new privacy model of bitcoin identities are exchanged where needed between individual parties. Today, there are laws for cash and the transaction of money using cash. Because you're using cash does not mean that you can avoid recording identity.
Know your customer requirements, customer due diligence and anti-money laundering laws all cover cash.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-high-value-dealer-registration
Whether it is a single transaction or multiples, where the value is €10,000 or more, the person transacting would require registration as a high-value dealer.
This even applies if you make instalments or payments on account. Bitcoin is a cash money system. Consequently, all of the money laundering regulations concerning cash will apply.
If you're receiving small amounts of money, not only micro-payments but even if you're running a coffee shop or restaurant, there will be no requirement to register as a high-value dealer. A real estate broker offering commercial leases could easily exceed this amount and thus have to require registration.
The majority of exchanges made using bitcoin will not require registration. Any exchange or custodial service will require registration. Local bitcoin and related organisations will require registration. When people go wrong is to think that normal everyday coffee shops and related organisations will require registration.
The need for trust is mitigated using registered identity based keys and hierarchies of linked keys.
CSW
Mar 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1585249153076800?thread_ts=1585249153.076800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2355
GOV.UK
Money laundering supervision for high value dealers
Find out if you’re a high value dealer and need to register with HMRC under the money laundering regulations.
Cobbie fails to realise that the whitepaper was not in the same Sourceforge file and folder as the license.
More importantly, MIT licensing covers source code.
The PDF is not source code. But the simple part is the research paper is in a separate folder without any license.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091127010808/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/
Notice - separate directories and NO license on the Wp
https://web.archive.org/web/20091128183828/http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=640697
No license in the Paper folder.
As author - I have copyright
I have also registereed.
The registration in the US is only a preclude to court action.
This is what people don't seem to understand. The people falsely filing saying that they wrote the whitepaper now have to defend. If they cannot, they either have to admit that they committed intentional fraud and falsified the filing or commit perjury in court.
They need to prove they created the whitepaper and the code if they want to defend. If they do not, that is they don't prove, then they could end up in prison
I fail to understand why people think that I work to their timetable.
The simple fact is I'm willing to take two years or more to put everything into place properly.
I am highly rational and incredibly detailed in calculating
I did note these in 2017...
CSW
Jan 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611221252079200?thread_t
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2447
More importantly, MIT licensing covers source code.
The PDF is not source code. But the simple part is the research paper is in a separate folder without any license.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091127010808/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/
Notice - separate directories and NO license on the Wp
https://web.archive.org/web/20091128183828/http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=640697
No license in the Paper folder.
As author - I have copyright
I have also registereed.
The registration in the US is only a preclude to court action.
This is what people don't seem to understand. The people falsely filing saying that they wrote the whitepaper now have to defend. If they cannot, they either have to admit that they committed intentional fraud and falsified the filing or commit perjury in court.
They need to prove they created the whitepaper and the code if they want to defend. If they do not, that is they don't prove, then they could end up in prison
I fail to understand why people think that I work to their timetable.
The simple fact is I'm willing to take two years or more to put everything into place properly.
I am highly rational and incredibly detailed in calculating
I did note these in 2017...
CSW
Jan 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611221252079200?thread_t
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2447
web.archive.org
Browse Bitcoin Files on SourceForge.net
Get Bitcoin at SourceForge.net. Fast, secure and free downloads from the largest Open Source applications and software directory
1/2
The reality is that if BTC core changed their name to SegWit or lightning coin or anything else similar, I would have absolutely no problems with them.
I'm very happy for developers to continue on alternative paths and even ones I don't believe are valuable. The fact that I don't believe something will be successful is not a reasoning for why other people will stop.
Those who want to develop lightning want to make a system that is analogous to the one we have already. It has no interest to me and it has no relationship to bitcoin.
The Bitcoin White Paper defines digital cash. It is a system that allows for micro payments. Lightning and the other systems being sold as digital gold do not allow for any of this.
There is nothing anarchist in my system at all. It was never released on a cypherpunk mailing list or anything cypherpunk or anarchist in any manner.
The nature of bitcoin is one that allows you to send payments directly from one party to another.
This statement is used to head up the abstract. Sending bitcoin from an individual to a node to a node to another person eventually is not analogous to a direct electronic cash payment.
The first paragraph of the bitcoin White Paper defines bitcoin as a system that allows for small online payments. The system that does not exist is not digital gold. Digital gold is common, digital gold has existed for forty years in one form or another.
The system that interested me and that has not come to fruition and that should be pushed is very simply a system that allows for small casual transactions.
The creation of a system to do small transactions is the true invention of bitcoin. It is not a system that allows for exchanges of large amounts of money for high fees as a primary mechanism.
And, no I don't have a timeframe I'm sorry.
The fact that you can form a record that does not change unless you redo the proof of work does not mean you cannot change the ownership structure in bitcoin either. There is a difference between saying that a record has been changed and that a ledger entry has been made.
When you run corporate accounts under Sarbanes Oxley in the USA or under provisions in the UK in IFRS it is necessary to ensure that records do not change. That is distinct and different from saying that they cannot be updated.
You can update a record without changing the original entry
The nature of large transactions provides for changes. This would not work on small transactions. The cost of reversing a transaction is part of the process. If you make a five dollar coffee purchase, it can be considered final straightaway. If you make a $5 million purchase, that is never finalised until the law says it is finalised.
And yes, nodes may add any necessary rules through the incentive structure of bitcoin
The consensus mechanism is the mining of blocks
I think bitcoin would be far larger without silk Road
The narrative of silk Road has hindered bitcoin by decades. It ruined the last twelve years and it has put barriers in front of us even now
There is nothing that cannot be done in the original protocol that is not being discussed here.
The alert key allowed for the freezing of funds.
The system was messy but still allowed for addendums to the system. Users would never know unless they were the people impacted. A court order could be written on chain and all of this would be public.
Each UTXO could be captured using a spandrel for the miners. It's only the miners that make these decisions. The so-called user nodes have no decision on this matter.
The cost of doing such an action would be extensive. It's going to preclude recovering small amounts completely and any amount such as US$50,000 would even be out of reach.
CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453
The reality is that if BTC core changed their name to SegWit or lightning coin or anything else similar, I would have absolutely no problems with them.
I'm very happy for developers to continue on alternative paths and even ones I don't believe are valuable. The fact that I don't believe something will be successful is not a reasoning for why other people will stop.
Those who want to develop lightning want to make a system that is analogous to the one we have already. It has no interest to me and it has no relationship to bitcoin.
The Bitcoin White Paper defines digital cash. It is a system that allows for micro payments. Lightning and the other systems being sold as digital gold do not allow for any of this.
There is nothing anarchist in my system at all. It was never released on a cypherpunk mailing list or anything cypherpunk or anarchist in any manner.
The nature of bitcoin is one that allows you to send payments directly from one party to another.
This statement is used to head up the abstract. Sending bitcoin from an individual to a node to a node to another person eventually is not analogous to a direct electronic cash payment.
The first paragraph of the bitcoin White Paper defines bitcoin as a system that allows for small online payments. The system that does not exist is not digital gold. Digital gold is common, digital gold has existed for forty years in one form or another.
The system that interested me and that has not come to fruition and that should be pushed is very simply a system that allows for small casual transactions.
The creation of a system to do small transactions is the true invention of bitcoin. It is not a system that allows for exchanges of large amounts of money for high fees as a primary mechanism.
And, no I don't have a timeframe I'm sorry.
The fact that you can form a record that does not change unless you redo the proof of work does not mean you cannot change the ownership structure in bitcoin either. There is a difference between saying that a record has been changed and that a ledger entry has been made.
When you run corporate accounts under Sarbanes Oxley in the USA or under provisions in the UK in IFRS it is necessary to ensure that records do not change. That is distinct and different from saying that they cannot be updated.
You can update a record without changing the original entry
The nature of large transactions provides for changes. This would not work on small transactions. The cost of reversing a transaction is part of the process. If you make a five dollar coffee purchase, it can be considered final straightaway. If you make a $5 million purchase, that is never finalised until the law says it is finalised.
And yes, nodes may add any necessary rules through the incentive structure of bitcoin
The consensus mechanism is the mining of blocks
I think bitcoin would be far larger without silk Road
The narrative of silk Road has hindered bitcoin by decades. It ruined the last twelve years and it has put barriers in front of us even now
There is nothing that cannot be done in the original protocol that is not being discussed here.
The alert key allowed for the freezing of funds.
The system was messy but still allowed for addendums to the system. Users would never know unless they were the people impacted. A court order could be written on chain and all of this would be public.
Each UTXO could be captured using a spandrel for the miners. It's only the miners that make these decisions. The so-called user nodes have no decision on this matter.
The cost of doing such an action would be extensive. It's going to preclude recovering small amounts completely and any amount such as US$50,000 would even be out of reach.
CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453
Creo que a estas alturas, mi consejo para cualquier persona que SERIAMENTE quiera entender Bitcoin, lo que le diría es: que debería leer a Satoshi en los años 2008 a 2010, esa es la información ORIGINAL, El resto es basura modificada, esto es lo que he tenido que hacer para poder entender algo:
1 - Leer Cualquier tipo de literatura ORIGINAL, hasta finales del 2010, que es cuando Satoshi Nakamoto abandona el proyecto de forma pública:
- Conversaciones de Satoshi antes de publicar el WP
- Wei Dai/Satoshi Nakamoto 2008 Bitcoin emails
https://www.gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/2008-nakamoto
- La Cryptography Maling List
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/the-cryptography-mailing-list/
@SatoshisQuotes
@BitCoin2008_2010
@BitCoinWP
@BitCoinSourceForge
@BitcoinTalkForum
Tuve que leer y aprender sobre los personajes de la época:
@Hal_Finney
@RayDillinger
@IanGrigg
@JosephVaughnPerling
@GavinAndresen1
@MikeHearn
Martti Malmi - Sirius
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEfZIWK-pPNt0xbJ8w
Theymos - Michael Marquardt
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE_evyVGPv9FDEI4jg
Dustin Trammell - SourceForge
https://t.me/joinchat/Vlm2uAXrH13D_wQO
Pieter Wuille - sipa
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEc2oE6pd2JpIHqucA
James A Donald
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFPGFm-RDcFBjmQmdQ
Ross Ulbricht - Silk Road
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE43D07PuY3QgGIHcw
Jeff Garzik
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEnS3SUbOxZ8fQZVOQ
Laszlo Hanyecz
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFYeLyoiFQcE30uEHA
Los que habían estado desarrollando elementos que ayudaron al nacimiento de BitCoin:
David Chaum DigiCash eCash
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEu1E8J3iuH-LzjEKA
Wei Dai b-money 1998 https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEUCtPG9jbF7V7JVRQ
Adam Back - 1997 Hashcash
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEx2e1ZJMmZDBC0l-g
Scott Stornetta - 1991
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFKwuZGrT6_yCoF81g
Nick Szabo Bit Gold 2005 https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE6IAofLEvS0rNZ03w
También otros proyectos sobre dinero digital previos a BitCoin, QUE FRACASARON EN SU INTENTO, esto es crucial para saber porque esos proyectos FRACASARON y BitCoin no:
eGold 1996 - 2008
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAElncNE4G4zBzbnJmw
DigiCash
https://t.me/joinchat/BSWwuAkQjr9hNDg0
Liberty Dollar
- Bernard von NotHaus
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFN-4GB-M3ITMx2LNA
Liberty Reserve (2006 - 2013)
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAExUu3yzrgFieGCaLg
2- Una vez se haya leído todo eso, entonces comparé lo leído, con lo que dice Craig:
@Craig_Wright
@CSW_Academic
@CSW_Articles
@CSW_Books
@CSW_Business
@CSW_Cybersecurity
@CSW_Economics
@CSW_Ideology
@CSW_interviews
@CSW_interviewsVideos
@CSW_Legal
@CSW_Patent
@CSW_Religion
@CSW_Satoshi
@CSW_Slack.
@CSW_VideoTalks
@CSW_Videos
@CSW_Asperger
@theArtofBitcoin
@TheSatoshiAffaire
@DonLynam
CSW personal Batlles
@BitCoinWP
@Double_Spend
@BitCoinDatabaseOwnership
@BitCoin_Domain
3 - A parti de entonces saqué mis conclusiones y una vez termines con eso, no te quedará ninguna duda, ni tampoco ganas de escuchar lo que dicen por ahí los mamarrachos que se inventan las cosas.
1 - Leer Cualquier tipo de literatura ORIGINAL, hasta finales del 2010, que es cuando Satoshi Nakamoto abandona el proyecto de forma pública:
- Conversaciones de Satoshi antes de publicar el WP
- Wei Dai/Satoshi Nakamoto 2008 Bitcoin emails
https://www.gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/2008-nakamoto
- La Cryptography Maling List
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/the-cryptography-mailing-list/
@SatoshisQuotes
@BitCoin2008_2010
@BitCoinWP
@BitCoinSourceForge
@BitcoinTalkForum
Tuve que leer y aprender sobre los personajes de la época:
@Hal_Finney
@RayDillinger
@IanGrigg
@JosephVaughnPerling
@GavinAndresen1
@MikeHearn
Martti Malmi - Sirius
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEfZIWK-pPNt0xbJ8w
Theymos - Michael Marquardt
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE_evyVGPv9FDEI4jg
Dustin Trammell - SourceForge
https://t.me/joinchat/Vlm2uAXrH13D_wQO
Pieter Wuille - sipa
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEc2oE6pd2JpIHqucA
James A Donald
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFPGFm-RDcFBjmQmdQ
Ross Ulbricht - Silk Road
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE43D07PuY3QgGIHcw
Jeff Garzik
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEnS3SUbOxZ8fQZVOQ
Laszlo Hanyecz
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFYeLyoiFQcE30uEHA
Los que habían estado desarrollando elementos que ayudaron al nacimiento de BitCoin:
David Chaum DigiCash eCash
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEu1E8J3iuH-LzjEKA
Wei Dai b-money 1998 https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEUCtPG9jbF7V7JVRQ
Adam Back - 1997 Hashcash
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEx2e1ZJMmZDBC0l-g
Scott Stornetta - 1991
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFKwuZGrT6_yCoF81g
Nick Szabo Bit Gold 2005 https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE6IAofLEvS0rNZ03w
También otros proyectos sobre dinero digital previos a BitCoin, QUE FRACASARON EN SU INTENTO, esto es crucial para saber porque esos proyectos FRACASARON y BitCoin no:
eGold 1996 - 2008
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAElncNE4G4zBzbnJmw
DigiCash
https://t.me/joinchat/BSWwuAkQjr9hNDg0
Liberty Dollar
- Bernard von NotHaus
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFN-4GB-M3ITMx2LNA
Liberty Reserve (2006 - 2013)
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAExUu3yzrgFieGCaLg
2- Una vez se haya leído todo eso, entonces comparé lo leído, con lo que dice Craig:
@Craig_Wright
@CSW_Academic
@CSW_Articles
@CSW_Books
@CSW_Business
@CSW_Cybersecurity
@CSW_Economics
@CSW_Ideology
@CSW_interviews
@CSW_interviewsVideos
@CSW_Legal
@CSW_Patent
@CSW_Religion
@CSW_Satoshi
@CSW_Slack.
@CSW_VideoTalks
@CSW_Videos
@CSW_Asperger
@theArtofBitcoin
@TheSatoshiAffaire
@DonLynam
CSW personal Batlles
@BitCoinWP
@Double_Spend
@BitCoinDatabaseOwnership
@BitCoin_Domain
3 - A parti de entonces saqué mis conclusiones y una vez termines con eso, no te quedará ninguna duda, ni tampoco ganas de escuchar lo que dicen por ahí los mamarrachos que se inventan las cosas.
gwern.net
Wei Dai/Satoshi Nakamoto 2009 Bitcoin emails
Emails in 2009 between Wei Dai and Satoshi Nakamoto discussing Bitcoin draft proposal and B-money.
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/394
Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/394
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through…
Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through…
2. Transactions
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
The problem of course is the payee can't verify that one of the owners did not double-spend the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to
issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent.
The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the
company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.
We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/395
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
The problem of course is the payee can't verify that one of the owners did not double-spend the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to
issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent.
The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the
company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.
We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/395
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
2. Transactions
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin.…
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin.…
3. Timestamp Server
The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/396
The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/396
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
3. Timestamp Server
The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves…
The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves…
4. Proof-of-Work
To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof- of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6], rather than newspaper or Usenet posts.
The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits. The average work required is exponential in the number of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash.
For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the
block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it.
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.
To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in running nodes over time, 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.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/397
To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof- of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6], rather than newspaper or Usenet posts.
The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits. The average work required is exponential in the number of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash.
For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the
block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it.
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.
To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in running nodes over time, 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.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/397
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
4. Proof-of-Work
To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof- of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6], rather than newspaper or Usenet posts.
The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value…
To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof- of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6], rather than newspaper or Usenet posts.
The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value…
5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on
extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-
of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one.
New transaction broadcasts do not necessarily need to reach all nodes. As long as they reach
many nodes, they will get into a block before long. Block broadcasts are also tolerant of dropped messages. If a node does not receive a block, it will request it when it receives the next block and realizes it missed one
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/398
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on
extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-
of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one.
New transaction broadcasts do not necessarily need to reach all nodes. As long as they reach
many nodes, they will get into a block before long. Block broadcasts are also tolerant of dropped messages. If a node does not receive a block, it will request it when it receives the next block and realizes it missed one
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/398
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds…
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds…
6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending
resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/399
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending
resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
https://t.me/BitcoinWP/399
Telegram
CSW 100 White Paper- WP
6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into…
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into…