原标题：比特币并非完全去中心化，连总量都可以改
Original title: Bitcoin is not completely decentralised. Even totals can be changed.
图片来源：视觉中国
Image source: Visual China
关于区块链去中心化的说法，都是两个核心逻辑的延伸、假设甚至误解。比如，最近陈伟星大战朱啸虎，宣称去中心化将重构生产要素的关系、解放生产力。虽然这个观点的格局足够大，大到可以和《资本论》里面的观点放在同一层面讨论，但是这只是一个假说，有待论证。而我们在此之前，应该好好的理解区块链去中心化的实际构成。
The idea of centrifugalization of blocks is an extension of two core logics, hypotheses, and even misunderstandings. For example, the recent Chen Weissung War claimed that decentralization would reshape the relationship between the factors of production and free productivity.
以比特币为例，去中心化的原理有两个：
In the case of bitcoin, there are two principles of decentralisation:
第一，作为一个区块链产品，因为其清算能力是分布在比特币网络的若干电脑上，而不是依赖于某个中心化服务器，因此比特币是去中心化的。
First, as a block chain product, because its liquidation capacity is spread over a number of computers in the Bitcoin network rather than relying on a centralized server, Bitcoin is decentralized.
第二，根据比特币的设计，清算能力分布在若干电脑上的同时，关于比特币程序的重大修改，是要进行投票的。这样，理论上比特币的决策是民主的，所以在这个意义上也可以说是去中心化的。
Second, according to the bitcoin design, liquidation capacity is distributed on a number of computers, and major changes to the bitcoin process are to be voted on. Thus, in theory, Bitcoin’s decision-making is democratic, so it can also be described as decentralized in this sense.
第一个去中心化概念很好理解，也很实用，可以说是对分布式网络的最佳社会或者金融应用了。但这不是全球区块链热潮的焦点，这个我们不展开了，请阅读前文《我理解的比特币原理》。第二个去中心化，民主决策实现自治，理想丰满；现实就是后来的分叉，非常狗血。
The first concept of decentralisation is well understood and practical, and can be said to be the best social or financial application for distributed networks. But this is not the focus of the global grid, which we do not. Read the previous bitcoin doctrine I understand.
比特币的去中心化自治机制
Bitcoin's Decentralised Autonomy Mechanism
比特币网络需要网络中的电脑上加载比特币客户端程序。负责维护比特币客户端程序开发组叫做Bitcoin Core，简称Core。对于每次版本更新，比如，出bug了，Core提出修改方案，然后通过程序向所有节点发起投票邀请。作为一个节点，我可以投票，大多数票通过后修改方案生效。所以比特币程序的修改要满足大多数节点的需求。
The Bitcoin network requires computers on the network to load the Bitcoin client program. The Bitcoin Core, short of Core, is responsible for maintaining the Bitcoin client development group. For each version update, for example, bugs, Core proposes a modified version and then initiates an invitation to vote through the program to all nodes. As a node, I can vote, and most votes take effect. So the bitco process changes to meet most nodes.
大致的流程是这样的:
The general process is as follows:
具体细节请参考出处：https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/28187573
For more details, please refer to https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/28187573.
理论上，这很科学。但是，投票不是一个比特币一票，而是一个CPU一票。这意味着什么呢？
Theoretically, it's very scientific. But voting is not one bitcoin, but one CPU. What does that mean?
比特币的利益错配
Bitcoin's interest is wrong.
有个很常见的误解，这就是“比特币网络由全体比特币用户共同控制”。这个是错误的。
There is a common misconception that the Bitcoin network is controlled by all bitcoin users. This is wrong.
上面说了，比特币的投票机制是以节点为单位的。这意味着，比特币的维护者代表了全体节点的利益。你可能觉得，这有什么区别？
It says that bitcoin's voting mechanism is in node. This means that bitcoin's defenders represent the interests of all nodes. What difference does it make?
这里面有一个概念混淆：不是每个比特币持有者都拥有一个节点。你我下载了一个第三方钱包，比如blockchain.info或者coinbase的钱包购买了比特币，我们只能算是用户。如果你是通过中心化交易所购买的比特币，你的比特币在比特币在网络上就看不到。
There's a conceptual confusion: not every bitcoin holder has a node. You download a third-party wallet, like Blockchai.info or coinbase, that buys bitcoins, and we're only users. If you buy bitcoins through a centralized exchange, you can't see bitcoins online in bitcoins.
此外，每个人持有比特币的多寡也没有关系，因为一个节点算一票。
In addition, it does not matter how much bitcoin each person holds, because one node counts as one vote.
那么节点都是什么样的人持有呢？从比特币的设计原理上来说，除了Core，还有很大一部分是是挖矿获得奖励、打包交易获得交易费用的矿工。矿工为比特币网络贡献了自己的电脑算力资源，获得比特币收益。那么比特币客户端程序好不好用，和矿工密切相关，所以Core在修改程序的时候，要进行投票。如果程序写的不好，矿工不干了，比特币网络就不存在了。
So what kind of person is the node? In Bitcoin's design, apart from Core, there's a large proportion of miners who get a reward for digging and selling. Miners contribute their computer numeracy to the Bitcoin network and get a bitcoin gain. So the Bitcoin client program works closely with the miners, so Core votes when it changes the program. If the miners don't do well, the Bitcoin network doesn't exist.
硬要套个传统的概念的话，矿工群体是比特币网络的主要股东；Core更像是董事会或者管理层。
In the case of traditional concepts, the group of miners is the main shareholder of the Bitcoin network; Core is more like a board of directors or management.
所以，简言之，如果你只是持有比特币而没有一个节点，比特币网络并不代表你的利益，你只是一个用户。
So, in short, if you just hold bitcoin without a node, bitcoinnet doesn't represent your interest, you're just a user.
你会说，这有什么问题吗？
Would you say, what's wrong with that?
有，这关心到比特币去中心化的含金量。
Yes, it concerns the gold content of bitcoin decentralised.
比特币理论上被修改的可能性
The theoretical possibility that bitcoin was modified
我们通常认为，比特币的所有权是去中心化的，即我的比特币权属，永远不会被篡改。
We usually believe that the ownership of Bitcoin is decentralized, i.e. my bitcoin possession, and will never be tampered with.
不像我在支付宝的余额，马爸爸要是喜欢，理论上他可以拿走；如果这么说大家觉得我在开玩笑的话，我修改一下表述：不像我在支付宝的余额，马爸爸要是喜欢，每年我取出超过20万的时候，他要收超过部分的0.1%。那这个马爸爸真的喜欢。
Unlike when I'm paying the balance of the treasure, if Ma's dad likes it, he can take it in theory; if everyone thinks I'm joking, I'll change it: unlike when I'm paying the balance of the treasure, if Ma's dad likes it, he's taking more than 0.1 per cent of the sum every year when I pick up more than 200,000.
那比特币权属是否无法篡改呢？说法略微有一点道理，但是也不绝对正确。
What about the Bitcoin title, which cannot be tampered with? There's a little truth to it, but it's not absolutely true.
理论上，Core在征得矿工同意的前提下，也是可以修改比特币程序的任何部分的。假设Core和矿工们约定要从其他比特币持有者那边征收0.1%的费用，来补贴矿工。Core可以提议把区块奖励提高0.1%；然后如果矿工们都同意了，这个修改就被通过，那么矿工的收益就增加了0.1%。
In theory, Core can also modify any part of the Bitcoin process with the consent of the miners. Assuming that Core and the miners agree to subsidize the miners by charging 0.1% of the fees from other Bitcoin holders.
这等于向现有的比特币持有者征税。因为这么做，比特币的总量就增加了0.1%，等于超发了0.1%的货币。在其他条件不变的前提下，货币超发，等同于把财富再分配给获得增量货币的群体，等同于向其他群体收费或者征税。
By doing so, the amount of bitcoins has increased by 0.1%, which is equal to the excess currency of 0.1%. Under other conditions, the excess currency is equal to the redistribution of wealth to the group receiving the incremental currency and to the charging or taxing of other groups.
被征税的比特币持有者没有办法，因为没有投票权；只能用脚投票，抛售比特币，或者忍受这个费用。
Taxed Bitcoin holders have no means because they do not have the right to vote; they can only vote by foot, sell bitcoin, or endure the cost.
所以，比特币在技术上是支持超发的；本来就是一个客户端程序，没有什么是不能改变的。这和法币的逻辑是一样，是不是金本位，可以商量的。
So bitcoin is technically supportive of super-exploitation; it's an inherently client program, and nothing can't be changed. It's like the logic of French coins, whether it's gold or not, it's negotiable.
但现实中是怎么样的呢？
But what's it like in reality?
比特币分叉：狗血大戏
BitcoinFix: Dog Blood Show
现实要复杂很多。
The reality is much more complex.
熟悉比特币的朋友知道比特币有很多分叉，糖果，你有一个比特币，有人莫名其妙突然有一天送你另一个币，没有任何成本，而且还有一定价值。我的天啊，比特币太神奇，不但没有超发，还有分红。
A friend familiar with Bitcoin knows that bitcoin has a lot of forks, candy, you have a bitcoin, and some people suddenly send you another one one day without any cost or value. My God, Bitcoin is amazing, not without extra hair, but with a bonus.
分叉，来自于神仙打架。比特币有两个核心群体，除了维护程序的Core，还有矿工。因为比特币网络是分布式网络，理论上矿工是分在在全球各地的个人。但是，随着挖矿的难度的增加，不是每个人都能稳定的挖到，挖矿的结果跟买彩票一样，所以很多矿工抱团，约定一起挖，有福共享，挖出来的大家均分。这就形成了矿池。矿池越来越大，大的矿池，头部的几家联合起来，占了超过50%的算力。下面这张图( http://www.qukuai.com/pools) 统计了2月25日前一个月的算力分布。
Bitcoin has two core groups, in addition to the maintenance program Core, and the miners. Because the Bitcoin network is a distributed network, theoretically the miners are part of individuals across the globe. But, as the difficulty of digging increases, not everyone can steadily dig, the results of digging are the same as buying lottery tickets, so many miners have agreed to dig together, share well, and share equally. This creates a pool. The ponds are growing, large ponds, and several headlines together account for more than 50 per cent of the calculation. This is the figure below (http://www.qukuai.com/pols) & nbsp; and a month before 25 February.
过去几年，比特币因为运算量激增，原来的区块容量太小，1M，不够用了。所以Core就计划升级区块。这是对程序的一次重要修改，所以要有大家的支持。几个大矿池及背后的股东（DCG的Barry Silbert、比特币大陆）和Core在具体方案上发生了分歧。
In the past few years, Bitcoin has been unable to upgrade the blocks because of the surge in volume, the original size of the blocks being too small, and one M. Core has planned to upgrade the blocks. This is an important modification of the process, so there is a need for support. There are differences between several large mining ponds and the shareholders behind them (the DCG's Barry Silbert, Bitcoin mainland) and Core on specific options.
矿池建议直接增加区块容量，1M不够来2M，或者直接到8M，解决根本问题。这从本质上解决问题，但是不是Core在过去几年测试的方案，不一定稳定。这个对矿池的好处是，区块容量升级意味着对电脑算力的要求几何倍数增加，因此只有专业的矿工才愿意购置这类电脑。这样，比特币的投票权将更集中在矿工集团手里。
The pond proposes to increase block capacity directly, with 1M below 2M, or directly to 8M, to solve the underlying problem. This is essentially a solution, but it is not the solution Core has tested over the past few years, and it is not necessarily stable. The advantage for the pond is that the upgrading of block capacity means an increase in the number of geometry requirements for computer computing, so only professional miners are willing to buy such computers.
Core表示反对，建议了用SegWit+闪电网络的方式，技术上等于马路边上修个公交车道，是个缓兵之计，并且过去几年已经投入测试。但是，Core也不是纯粹的了“为了部落”，Core的几个核心成员，都在一家叫Blockstream的公司任职，这家公司拥有闪电网络的专利。Wait，比特币不是去中心化的吗？Well，闪电网络不是的。
Core objected, suggesting that the Segwit+Molnt network, which technically equals a bus lane by the side of the road, is a dilatory strategy, and has been tested over the past few years. But, Core is not simply “for the tribe.” Core’s core members are all in a company called Blockstream, a company that owns a patent for the lightning network.
所以比特币网络的“主要股东”和“董事会”就怎么扩容进行了协商。2016年在香港协商了一次，有了一个妥协的计划，结果开完会Core的成员不认同Core参会代表的妥协版本，拒绝开发，这个计划直接流产；2017年，几个矿池自己在纽约开了个会，推出了另一个版本SegWit2X；Core根本不认这个版本，为了狙击，推出了版本UASF；矿池为了反狙击，推出了UAHF。
So the “principal shareholders” and the “Council” of Directors of the Bitcoin network were consulted on how to expand their reach. In 2016, a compromise plan was negotiated in Hong Kong, resulting in Core’s members refusing to develop the compromise version of Core’s delegates, which was simply aborted; in 2017, several ponds held their own meetings in New York and launched a different version of SegWit X; Core didn’t even recognize the version; the UASF version was launched for sniper purposes; and the UAHF was launched to counter sniper attacks.
这些版本你来我往，有的成功有的失败，其中最成功的是UAHF，这个的Token叫做Bitcoin Cash。
These are the versions you come to me, some of the successes and some of the failures, the most successful of which is UAHF, and this Token is called Bitcoin Cash.
普通的比特币持有者并不熟悉香港共识、纽约共识，大家拿到了价值不菲的Bitcoin Cash，都很开心。
Ordinary Bitcoin holders are not familiar with the Hong Kong Consensus, the New York Consensus, and everyone is happy to have the valuable Bitcoin Cash.
但是，通过扩容方案之争，我们看到：比特币网络没有什么是不可修改的，要是不能改，就造一个新的；去中心化并没有把决定权给到所有的用户，而是节点，而有实力的参与者无一不在推动修改规则以求最大化自己的利益；因为比特币存在Core、矿池两大利益集团，所以尚能互相制衡。
However, through the magnanimous programme, we see: nothing in the Bitcoin network is unalterable, and if it cannot be changed, a new one is created; decentralized does not give decision-making power to all users, but rather to nodes, while powerful players are not promoting changes in the rules in order to maximize their interests; and because of the existence of the two main interests of Bitcoin, Core, the pond, there are still checks and balances.
未来的样子
The way of the future.
比特币作为第一代区块链产品有其不完美之处，也不代表所有的区块链产品。以太坊等都是吸取了比特币经验的作品。
Bitcoin is imperfect as a first-generation block chain product, and it doesn't represent all block chain products. Ether is a work that draws on bitcoin experience.
但是更多是让我们担心的区块链产品，虽然总量恒定、开源、不可篡改，但是本质上开发组和主要的股东、矿工都是一个团体，甚至都没有实质性的投票机制。更有甚者大多数Token都掌握在创始团队手中。
But much more of the block chain product that worries us, although the total is constant, open-source, non-manufacturing, is essentially a group of developers and major shareholders, miners, and not even a substantial voting mechanism. And even more, most Token is in the hands of the founding team.
如何在任何一个区块链产品中实现社区自治，维护所有用户的利益，实现真正的去中心化，不但是个技术难题，恐怕也是政治难题。100%的民主决策流程是低效的，一个组织不可能事无巨细都让所有成员投票，这等同于一个国家天天公投。但是一旦有人被代表，就有利益，就有纷争。这是人类从来都没有解决的问题，但愿区块链产品作为小规模的社会实践沙盘，能有一些曙光。
How to achieve community autonomy, safeguard the interests of all users, and truly decentralize in any block chain product is not only a technical problem, but also a political one. A 100% democratic decision-making process is inefficient, and an organization cannot allow all its members to vote without great detail, which is tantamount to a national referendum every day.
未来会是什么样子的呢？
What will the future look like?
（来源：钛媒体 作者：teenager）
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论