By Bitcoin Ajakiri - 6 kuud tagasi - lugemisaeg: 6 minutit
Krüptopealkirja tagasinõudmine: PoW ja krüptograafia ülimuslikkus
The term "crypto" has become a buzzword, encompassing a wide range of digital assets. Amongst Bitcoiners, it has also become a derogatory term used to refer to altcoins, as seen in the oft-repeated phrase “Bitcoin, Not Crypto.” However, not everything in the crypto world is truly "crypto," at least not in the literal sense of the name.
Krüptovaluuta tõeline olemus seisneb selle võrgu turvalisuse tagamises krüptograafiale ja mitte millelegi muule. See toob meid olulise erinevuseni: ainult töötõendit saab tõeliselt krüptomünte pidada. See eristus pole mitte ainult semantiline, vaid ka põhimõtteliselt oluline, kuna see rõhutab, mis täpselt pearaamatut tugevdab.
"Cryptocurrency" combines two critical components: "crypto," referring to cryptography, and "currency," denoting a medium of exchange and monetary unit. Cryptography is the art of communicating in code, and the logical underpinning of cryptography is a discipline of mathematics. Translating human language into ciphertext and back in a sensible and orderly fashion requires advanced math. From this discipline was born two key elements which came together to make Bitcoin work: hashing in the form of SHA-256 and asymmetric cryptography in the form of digital signatures.
Valuuta tähendab loomulikult vahetusvahendit. Valuutad ei kanna intressi ega anna „kommunaalteenuseid” väljaspool rahalist kasulikkust ega „valitsemisõigust”. Tõepoolest, ainuüksi see fakt peaks lõpetama arutelu selle üle, mis täpselt on krüptovaluuta ja mis mitte: “valitsemise” ja “kasuliku” märgid ei lähe arvesse.
The Cryptography in Bitcoin
PoW secures and powers true cryptocurrencies. In Bitcoin’s PoW, miners use SHA-256 to write on the ledger. Full nodes use SHA-256 to validate the accumulated work of the ledger. Merkle proofs, which also require SHA-256, are used by SPV to check whether transactions have been processed without looking at the whole ledger. Digital signatures are used by everyone to ensure non-repudiation of transactions. Newer features like Taproot have given us Schnorr Signatures and MAST to create other spending conditions, all of which are rooted in cryptography.
It’s important to note that PoW can work without computers. The decentralized ledger can still be maintained to a degree even if the math was done by hand and the proofs were carried by horseback to a public square and inscribed onto a mural for all to see. The only thing that is absolutely required by Bitcoin operators to ensure the ledger’s integrity is cryptography.
There are no shortcuts or alternative means to process and validate transactions in PoW. This purity in the application of cryptography – requiring cryptography and absolutely nothing else – is what makes Bitcoin true “crypto.”
Panuse tõendamine ja muud mehhanismid
In contrast, many of the digital assets commonly referred to as “cryptocurrencies” – the same ones Bitcoiners have derogated as “crypto” when they say “Bitcoin, Not Crypto” – operate on different mechanisms, such as proof-of-stake (PoS), proof-of-authority (PoA), or other hybrid models.
While these mechanisms also use some form of cryptography, they introduce additional elements like ownership and reputation to secure the network. These additions dilute the role of pure cryptography in maintaining the network's integrity.
Ja selles peitub PoS-i ja muude sellega seotud seikade saatuslik viga.
Even to this day, 14 years after the Bitcoin genesis block, PoS is yet to resolve the long-range attack without reliance on a centralized and trusted source. A long-range attack is when PoS validators take back their stake and start creating an alternative chain of events privately. Since this phony alternative chain would have been using the same consensus rules as the “true” chain, there is no way for new users of the blockchain to tell which chain is the correct one after this phony chain is made public. Under PoW, it is trivial to tell the fakes from the real one – the arbiter is the easily verifiable metric of accumulated work. Therefore, PoS users must trust a checkpoint outside of the blockchain to let them know which one is correct.
Oh, and I lied just now. Over these 14 years, there has been one solution for PoS chains to bypass the long-range attack without a centralized and trusted source. The Babylon protocol is a Cosmos chain that helps resolve the long-range attack by aggregating the checkpoints of PoS chains by (hold your applause!) publishing these checkpoints to the truly decentralized and trustless proof-of-work Bitcoin timechain!
On naljakas, kuidas jaburused, mis tegid suuri turvalisuse, usalduse ja detsentraliseerimise kompromisse, kaasates selliseid tegureid nagu maine ja osalus, jõudsid täisringi tagasi selle juurde, mis tegelikult loob turvalised, usaldusväärsed ja detsentraliseeritud süsteemid: puhas krüptograafia.
“Cryptography” Narrows Our Focus to PoW, but “Currency” Narrows Our Focus to Bitcoin
Matemaatika on parem kui omandiõigus ja maine, sest matemaatikat ei saa muuta. Omandi ja mainega tagatud varad on fiatile või väärtpaberitele lähemal kui krüptovaluutadele või toormetele. Ja nüüd astun sammu edasi.
If the “cryptography” part narrows the scope to PoW, then “currency” should narrow our focus to Bitcoin alone. A currency is a tangible instantiation of the abstract concept called money. Money is the most liquid good, the most saleable commodity, the good which produces the lowest diminishing marginal utility, and the asset that wins the barter system by making all barter about itself. There ultimately can only be one money.
There are a few different cryptography-backed currencies: XMR, BCH, LTC, DOGE, etc. But they are not the most liquid goods in this space by far, as their individual market caps added together aren't anywhere near Bitcoin’s market cap alone. So, if there can only be one “most liquid good” then we should focus on that singular instantiation of money that is the most liquid.
Mõelge sellele nii. Seal on palju fiati valuutasid, kuid rahvusvahelise kaubanduse ja rahvusvaheliste finantstehingute ajal kasutatakse kõige silmatorkavamalt ainult USA dollarit. Kui inimesed vahetavad asju globaalses kontekstis, kasutavad nad oma tingimuste märgistamiseks automaatselt USD-d. Kõiki teisi fiate saab vahetada USD vastu, kuid mitte tingimata muude mitte-USD fiatite vastu (ilma dollareid enne läbi käimata). Ehkki fiati valuutasid on tehniliselt palju, on tegelikult ainult üks, mida kasutatakse laialdaselt. Kui mainime "fiat-valuutat", puudutavad meie hilisemad pahandused, kiitused, analüüsid, kuumad võtted jne sageli lihtsalt USA dollarit.
Seega on ilmselgelt olemas ühendav raamistik, kui käsitleme fiati abstraktselt; fiat on peamiselt USA dollar ja teiseks muude asjade liit. On aeg hakata samamoodi krüpto peale mõtlema.
Miks eristus on oluline
Reclaiming the term "crypto" to refer exclusively to Bitcoin is not a matter of pedantry; it's a matter of principle. Labeling all digital assets as "cryptocurrencies" and using the term “crypto” as a pejorative for lesser assets is spitting in the face of the profound and significant cryptographic foundation that Satoshi laid through Bitcoin.
The strength of a true cryptocurrency lies in its reliance on the immutable laws of mathematics. There are no "what-ifs" or "buts" when it comes to the security of PoW; it is as robust as the cryptographic algorithms it employs. We ought to prefer the permanence of mathematics over the ephemerality of ownership and reputation. Not trusting in the math behind Bitcoin’s robustness is effectively as illogical as not trusting in the Pythagorean Theorem or that 2x2=4. It is the flat-earthism of the modern day.
Names have power, and the name "crypto" is no exception. True “crypto” pays homage to the fact that mathematics alone can power a system so secure and transparent that it needs no central authority or additional layers of complexity to function. Should we attach this name to things that require “stake” and “authority” to run?
Järeldus
As the world of digital assets continues to evolve, it's crucial to remember the roots and original intentions behind this technology. Let's reclaim that name and appropriately honor the mathematical robustness that only Bitcoin pakub.
Selle asemel "Bitcoin, Not Crypto” perhaps we should say “Crypto, Meaning Bitcoin. "
See on külalise postitus Allard Peng. Avaldatud arvamused on täielikult nende endi omad ja need ei kajasta tingimata BTC Inc või Bitcoin Ajakiri
Algne allikas: Bitcoin Ajakiri