Why does Ethereum reduce its price
money, as a measure of transaction value, does not necessarily have value in itself, it can only be used as an intermediate unit of measurement. It's just like China has only RMB as legal tender, that is to say, government guarantee has value. For example, in those war-torn areas, ten jin currency may not buy an egg, which is the reason
back to digital currency, digital currency, until now, no country has recognized it as the currency in circulation of its own country. It seems that last year or the year before last, our country also banned some. In this case, digital currency can only be sold at a price higher than your purchase price, so that you can make money. But digital currency itself does not have any value. Unlike stocks, it is your ownership of listed companies. So if you can't find someone to buy digital currency, it's worthless
the Ponzi scheme in history, the Dutch tulip, when it was the most expensive, a tulip was worth buying a house. When no one bought it, all the tulips rotted. In addition, they couldn't get a potato. Therefore, Buffett said that digital money is a bubble, which is a hoax.
in addition, there is a saying in the stock market that when all the ladies in the vegetable market begin to discuss the stock market, it is the time when the stock market reaches its peak. In my opinion, this also applies to digital currency. When many people are discussing how to make money and how to make a lot of money, the risk has accumulated to a great extent. Most of the time, when the stock begins to fall, many people are still in the previous inertial thinking, thinking that it will rebound soon, and then it will get lower and lower, and they are more reluctant to sell it. This is why many people hold a high position on it
I'm not sure whether it is the highest point of digital currency, but I think that digital currency, which can be issued by anyone, has no purchase value and can only be sold to others. I think it's a fraud.
There is an essential difference between Ethereum and bitcoin. What is the difference? Bitcoin defines a set of currency system, while Ethereum focuses on building a main chain (which can be understood as a road) to allow a large number of blockchain applications to run on this road
from this point of view, Ethereum's application scenarios are more extensive, which is why we say that Ethereum marks a simple monetary system in the era of blockchain
1.0, and a transformation to other instries and application scenarios in the era of blockchain 2.0
however, there is no perfect thing in the world. Although Ethereum has expanded the application scope of blockchain in all walks of life and improved the speed of transaction processing, it also has some disputes and doubts
first, the solution to the lack of scalability of Ethereum: slicing technology and lightning network
the bottom design of Ethereum, the biggest problem is that Ethereum has only one chain and no side chain, which means that all programs have to run on this chain equally, consuming resources and causing system congestion. Just like last year's very popular Ethereum game "encryption cat", when this game was very popular, it once caused Ethereum network paralysis
to improve the processing capacity, Ethereum proposes two ways: shard and lightning network. Let's introce these two technologies respectively
(1) fragmentation technology
vitalik buterin, founder of Ethereum, believes that the reason why mainstream blockchain networks such as bitcoin process transactions very slowly is that every miner has to process every transaction in the whole network, which is actually very inefficient. The idea of fragmentation technology is: a transaction does not need to be processed by all nodes in the whole network, as long as some nodes (miners) in the network are allowed to process it. Therefore, Ethereum network is divided into many pieces. At the same time, each piece can handle different transactions. In this way, the network performance will be greatly improved
however, the slicing technology is also controversial. As we all know, the important idea of blockchain technology is decentralization. Only when the whole network witnesses (processes) the same transaction can it have the highest authority. The Ethereum slicing technology is similar to the group witness, not all nodes witness together. In this way, it will lose the absolute "decentralization" attribute, and can only achieve the purpose of high performance by sacrificing certain characteristics of decentralization
(2) lightning network
lightning network uses the way of transaction under the chain. What does that mean? It means: when the participants of lightning network transfer money to each other, they do not need to confirm the transaction through the main chain of Ethereum, but create a payment channel between the participants and complete it under the chain
however, lightning network is not separated from the main chain. Before establishing a payment channel, you need to use the assets on the main chain as collateral to generate a balance proof, which indicates that you can transfer the corresponding balance. In the case that both parties of the transaction hold the balance certificate, both parties can make unlimited number of transfers under the chain through the payment channel
only when the off chain transaction is completed and the assets need to be transferred back to the chain, the balance change information of the main chain account will be registered on the Ethereum main chain, and no matter how many transactions occur ring this period, there will be no record on the main chain
another real benefit of lightning network is that it can save the cost of miners for you. At present, when we trade on the main chain of Ethereum, we need to consume gas and pay for miners. Once we move the transaction to the lower chain, we can save this part of the cost
Of course, lightning network is not perfect. When using the lightning network, the assets on the main chain should be used as collateral; And this part of assets as collateral can not be used before the user completes the transaction under the chain. This also determines that lightning trading is only suitable for small transactionsthe above is the problem of insufficient scalability of Ethereum, as well as the two main solutions: fragmentation technology and lightning network
Second, there are loopholes in Ethereum's smart contract and the infamous Dao event
Ethereum's smart contract is very powerful, but there are loopholes in any code. The biggest controversy of Ethereum's smart contract lies in the so-called loopholes, that is, security issues. According to relevant research, 34200 (about 3%) of the nearly 1 million smart contracts based on Ethereum contain security vulnerabilities, which will allow hackers to steal eth, freeze assets or delete contracts, such as the infamous Dao incident
(1) what does Dao meanbefore introcing the Dao event, let's first introce what Dao is. Dao is the abbreviation of decentralized
autonomous organization, which can be understood as decentralized autonomous organization. From the perspective of Ethereum, Dao is a kind of contract or a combination of contracts on the blockchain, which is used to replace the government's review and complex intermediate proceres, so as to achieve an efficient and decentralized trust system. Therefore, Dao is not a specific organization, that is to say, there can be many Dao, all kinds of Dao
(2) the infamous Dao event
however, when we talk about Dao now, we basically refer to the Dao event, that is, the infamous hacker attack event we just mentioned. As we know, the English word "the" refers to "the Dao event". The Dao event
refers to "the Dao event", because we just said that Dao is not a specific organization, there can be many Dao, all kinds of Dao
in 2016, slock.it, a German company focusing on "smart locks", launched the Dao project on Ethereum in order to realize decentralized physical exchange (such as apartments and ships). Since April 30, 2016, the financing window has been open for 28 days
unexpectedly, this Dao project is very popular. It raised more than US $100 million in just half a month. By the end of the whole financing period, it raised a total of US $150 million. Therefore, it has become the largest crowdfunding project in history. However, it didn't last long. In June, hackers took advantage of the loopholes in the smart contract to successfully transfer more than 3.6 million Ethernet coins and put them into a Dao sub organization, which has the same structure as the Dao. At that time, the price of Ethernet currency fell directly from more than $20 to less than $13
this event shows that there are loopholes in smart contracts, and once the loopholes are exploited by hackers, the consequences will be very serious. This is why many people criticize Ethereum and say that its smart contract is not smart
to solve this problem, many foreign companies begin to provide code audit services in order to solve the vulnerability problem of smart contract. From a technical point of view, some teams are currently testing smart contracts. Most of these teams are led by professors from Harvard, Stanford and Yale, and some of them have obtained investment from leading institutions
in addition to the problems of insufficient expansibility and loopholes in smart contracts, the controversy over Ethereum lies in the POS consensus mechanism it pursues, that is, the proof of equity mechanism. Under the proof of equity mechanism, if anyone holds more money and holds it for a longer time, he will get more "rights" (interests) and have the opportunity to get bookkeeping power, Bookkeeping can also be rewarded. In this way, it is easy to create the oligarchic advantage of "the stronger the stronger"
Another problem is the chaos of ICO. ICO is a common way to raise funds for blockchain projects, which we can understand as pre-sale. The outbreak of ICO projects on Ethereum has caused illegal activities such as fund allocation and money fraud under the banner of ICO, which has caused security risks to social and financial stabilityhowever, bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency with rising value. The value of another cryptocurrency called Ethereum has been increasing since January 2017. From $8.24 to $203. Up 2367%
investors are worried that in the past few years, cryptocurrencies have gained the favor of many investors who are looking for other investment methods than traditional ones. Although most investors still invest their money in traditional financial markets, such as the stock market and foreign exchange market, many of these investors have begun to worry about the economic climate of the world economy
recent events have made us aware of the instability of traditional financial markets such as the stock market and foreign exchange market. Many investors have been looking for other ways to invest their money
with the creation and popularization of cryptocurrency and its rapidly rising value, many investors, especially those from Asia, have joined the trend of bitcoin and cryptocurrency
advantages of Ethereum
although many people are more familiar with it, Ethereum has also gained a fair share of the market with its own value. However, there are key differences between the blockchains used by Ethereum and bitcoin
the difference between the two systems is that Ethereum's data processing speed is faster than that of bitcoin, because once agreed, Ethereum's system will automatically apply to the terms and conditions in the contract
although many people may think that Ethereum may be inferior to bitcoin because its value is lower than bitcoin, this is a good thing for investors who are looking for investment channels other than bitcoin. A lower price may attract more investors because it has more room for growth. The only drawback is that Ethereum is not as established as bitcoin. In view of this, bitcoin is more secure than Ethereum<
not as volatile as before
since bitcoin was founded in 2009, cryptocurrencies have made great achievements, and they have continued to grow. In fact, the value of legal cryptocurrency has risen a lot since then
although cryptocurrencies have performed very well this year, analysts expect that when the economic situation is good, investors will leave cryptocurrencies and return to traditional investment media. When this happens, the volatility of cryptocurrency will decrease because of the decrease of demand
of course, we will still see the growth of cryptocurrency in the next few years, which will help the instry remain strong. When that happens, it's a good idea for investors to hold cryptocurrencies for future growth.
compared with bitcoin, we can find that Ethereum is more difficult to develop a new encryption technology than bitcoin. This breakthrough has greatly reced the development cost and time for developers who apply blockchain technology. The emergence of Ethereum once again reiterated the need to split the center, as well as the feasibility and advantages of decentralized distributed applications, to the existing economic market, the financial sector a new direction of development and throw to the society a new entrepreneurial ideas and opportunities.
2015-08-17 09:17:38 Views: key words: Mike
related reading: Mike Hearn: internal contradictions in the enterprise prevent Google from accepting bitcoin
Yes, it's coming. The community is beginning to separate, and bitcoin is about to bifurcate: including software, and perhaps blockchain. The two sides of the split are bitcoin core and the micro variant program based on the same program, called bitcoin XT. On August 16, Beijing time, there is now a full version of bitcoin XT
this bifurcation has never happened before. I want to explain this from the perspective of bitcoin XT developers: it can't be said that it hasn't been communicated enough
bitcoin bifurcation, this topic may make many people curious, so this article is written for ordinary readers. It doesn't involve the knowledge that has been debated before
the original version of bitcoin was carefully arranged by Nakamoto, and has always been very clear. The debate is about growth. In 2008, he answered the first question about the design of bitcoin, saying:
visa processed 37 billion transactions in fiscal year 2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. So many deals require 100GB of bandwidth = 12 DVDs or 2 HD quality movies = about $18 of bandwidth at the current price
assuming that the bitcoin network reaches this scale, it will take several years. By then, sending two HD movies over the Internet may not be a big deal
at that time, he was more tired of bitcoin expansion than any of us. His plan is to make bitcoin popular from the beginning, and he knows that this success will change how people use his system. In 2010, he said, "it's good that we keep [blockchain] files as small as possible
the final solution will not care how big it (blockchain file) becomes
but now, while it is still small, keep it in a small state, and the growth of new users will be faster. When I finally implement client only mode, it's no longer a problem
"
in 2011, through a series of calculations, I expanded the expansion intuition of Nakamoto in detail: if bitcoin becomes so popular, will it completely replace visa? The answer is that his plan is credible - you don't need anything else but a computer, even if there's so much traffic. Before he left, I also implemented the model he talked about
it was Nakamoto's plan that brought us together. It has changed the lives of thousands of people around the world. Some of us give up our jobs, others devote their spare time to the project, others set up companies and even travel around the world. This is an idea that ordinary people can complete mutual payment through blockchain and create this global community
that's the vision I signed, and that's the vision Gavin Andresen signed, and that's the vision signed by millions of developers, founders of startups, evangelists, and users around the world
and this vision is now in danger. In recent months, it's clear that a small group of people have completely different plans for bitcoin. These people have never really understood Nakamoto's intention because they are worried about success, if the technology has never been improved, if people can't run bitcoin on their home computers? Doesn't this make bitcoin move away from centralization and more like banking? What if people start to rely on bitcoin, even if it's imperfect
now, Nakamoto has chosen to disappear, and they want to make a major change: substantially increase transaction costs, end support for mobile P2P wallets, give up unconfirmed transactions, and many things that have never been found in the project's founding documents
the so-called lightning network, which is about to be promoted as a substitute for Nakamoto's design, does not exist. The white paper describes that it was announced earlier this year, and if it can be realized, it will be a huge departure from the bitcoin we know and love. Pick one of the many differences, and a bitcoin address won't work. What they will be replaced with has not yet been worked out (because no one knows). There are many other surprising pitfalls that I mentioned in another article. What will it eventually proce to make our existing bitcoin network better? It is still extremely unclear
what happened to the free market
in theory, none of this should be a problem. Lightning network is built on the blockchain, but it needs a rather trivial upgrade process to achieve the best function. Of course, people are willing to explore this direction, which is entirely possible. If the jobs they set up are better than the existing ordinary bitcoin network, then the market will choose their way, if so... It is fair competition for them! The current design of bitcoin is unlikely to be the final version for payment. This is a reasonable imagination, one day it will be eliminated in the competition, or enhanced by something else
but our system is working today. It has an ecosystem, including developers, exchanges, wallets, ATMs, books, applications, conferences, and many people have learned how it works
if there was a free choice, would people decide to move to a completely different system
we don't know, but the people who are pushing these things don't want the market to make a decision. That's what happened
a long time ago, Nakamoto set up a temporary "mixed brand assembly computer": he limited the size of each block to 1 MB. He did so in order to keep the blockchain in a small state in the early days, until we now call it the creation of SPV wallet (that is, what Nakamoto calls "client only mode"). As mentioned above, when the time comes, it can be adjusted. It has never been said that it is permanent. In the end, it becomes irrelevant. In 2011, I wrote the first SPV tool with my respected colleague Andreas schildbach, and we built the first and most popular Android wallet together. Since then, SPV wallets have been used on major platforms. Therefore, Nakamoto's reasons for this temporary restriction have been solved a long time ago
with the continuous growth of bitcoin, its blocks are also growing. Reasonable traffic forecasts show that the block will reach the current system limit sometime next year, at the latest in 2017. Another bubble or pressure cycle will force us to exceed that limit before, and the result may not be beautiful.
so it's time to raise the upper limit, or delete it completely. That's our plan, and the problem starts: those who don't want to see bitcoin expand have decided to postpone the process. They saw a beautiful, one-time opportunity to forcibly transfer bitcoin's predetermined path to a completely different technological trajectory. They don't know what this alternative design will be, and of course they haven't built it yet. But it doesn't matter. They believe that by blocking the growth of the blockchain, they can "motivate" (that is, force) the bitcoin community to switch to different things, something more in line with their personal technical taste
why restrict blockchain
so far, I haven't explained much about these people or who they are. I think it's a very time-consuming and laborious thing to name names in this article, and it seems to be futile in the end. Presumably those who care about this matter already know it, and those who don't know it can't recognize the people who are involved in it
I just want to say that they are very few people who have access to the bitcoin core code base, or those who are convinced by their arguments
therefore, we will not discuss these arguments here, which has been too much. Gavin and I have written articles to analyze the questions raised by everyone to refute them. Sometimes the answer is some common sense, some will be more in-depth, need more work, such as network simulation
the best place to understand these controversies is in Gavin's blog. I hope to find a link to a collection of opinions similar to those refuting Gavin's point of view, but none of them
to sum up, in the long and hard debate, several different opposition groups:
if bitcoin approaches this limit, we will be stimulated to create something better
the limit should be raised, but it is not ready (the actual time is not specified)
if bitcoin is expanded and becomes more centralized, it will no longer be bitcoin< Other people: if the objections you support are not listed above, please check Gavin's blog and find out the answer
the first point may become a reality one day, but it is not comparable with the theoretical system on paper. But no one who has seen any alternative solutions on the table thinks they can be implemented within 12 months (see another example in the last paragraph, for example)... Even assuming they are better. This is also an example of the nirvana fallacy:
the nirvana fallacy refers to the name of the informal fallacy of some unrealistic and idealized substitutes for something more practical. It can also refer to the tendency to think that there is a perfect solution to a specific problem, so it is also called perfectionism fallacy
it's obviously advantageous to create an imitative dichotomy for a current choice. But it's also totally incredible. One who uses the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. According to this fallacy, the choice is not between real-world solutions. One is a realistic solution, and the other is an impractical solution, which is the "better" choice between the two
the answer to the second objection is too vague. It is reasonable to believe that the overall upgrade of each bitcoin node may take one year, and the actual bitcoin network capacity overload will cause serious damage. We really should be ready before that. In the bitcoin development mailing list, there are two people who have professional capacity planning experience, and both of them have