Bitcoin Whitepaper Hey du! Schön, dass du hier bist. 😊
Bitcoin: Ein Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Besuchen Sie das Bitcoin-Whitepaper Repository auf GitHub für eine Einführung und öffnen Sie ein "Issue",. Bitcoin: Ein elektronisches Peer-to-Peer- Cash-System. Satoshi Nakamoto [email protected] ihappynewyear2019.co Translated in German from. Satoshi hat in einer Mail in der Cryptographie Mailing List am 1. November ein Whitepaper mit dem schlichten Titel "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash. Das Bitcoin White Paper wurde im Jahr von Satoshi Nakamoto in einer Mailing-Liste veröffentlicht. Es enthält die Grundidee und den technologischen. Heute, am Oktober, sind es elf Jahre seit das Bitcoin-Whitepaper durch die immer noch geheimnisvolle Person oder Gruppe unter dem.
Gox Two-factor Authentication. 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. But an attacker can create fraudulent transactions click at this page as long as an attacker can visit web page the network. Avila, and J. We assume the sender is an attacker who wants to make the recipient believe he paid him for a while, then switch it to pay back to himself after some time has passed. It explains how the proof of work structure renders falsification of transaction information nearly impossible. Bitcoin's incentive program is a mechanism that protects the peer-to-peer electronic payment . Bitcoin Whitepaper Video
Bitcoin Whitepaper ("Audiobook")What is Bitcoin? A Quick Outline. Bitcoin Is A Peaceful Protest. How To Buy Bitcoin. Bitcoin for Beginners. Lightning Network Explained.
As an Amazon Affiliate, Bitcoin Maximalist may earn commission on any products you buy…. Twitter Facebook-f Pinterest Instagram.
Bitcoin Maximalist. Contact About Guest Write. We are a small team, working on a small budget, and any BTC donation to the address below will help us continue with our aim to educate the world about Bitcoin.
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.
Reclaiming Disk Space Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space.
To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash.
Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. Simplified Payment Verification It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node.
A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in.
He can't check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network.
One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency.
Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
Combining and Splitting Value Although it would be possible to handle coins individually, it would be unwieldy to make a separate transaction for every cent in a transfer.
To allow value to be split and combined, transactions contain multiple inputs and outputs.
Normally there will be either a single input from a larger previous transaction or multiple inputs combining smaller amounts, and at most two outputs: one for the payment, and one returning the change, if any, back to the sender.
Transaction In Out In It should be noted that fan-out, where a transaction depends on several transactions, and those transactions depend on many more, is not a problem here.
There is never the need to extract a complete standalone copy of a transaction's history. Privacy The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party.
The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous.
The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.
Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner.
The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner. Calculations We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain.
Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker.
Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them.
An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent. The race between the honest chain and an attacker chain can be characterized as a Binomial Random Walk.
The probability of an attacker catching up from a given deficit is analogous to a Gambler's Ruin problem. Suppose a gambler with unlimited credit starts at a deficit and plays potentially an infinite number of trials to try to reach breakeven.
With the odds against him, if he doesn't make a lucky lunge forward early on, his chances become vanishingly small as he falls further behind.
We now consider how long the recipient of a new transaction needs to wait before being sufficiently certain the sender can't change the transaction.
We assume the sender is an attacker who wants to make the recipient believe he paid him for a while, then switch it to pay back to himself after some time has passed.
The receiver will be alerted when that happens, but the sender hopes it will be too late. The receiver generates a new key pair and gives the public key to the sender shortly before signing.
This prevents the sender from preparing a chain of blocks ahead of time by working on it continuously until he is lucky enough to get far enough ahead, then executing the transaction at that moment.
Once the transaction is sent, the dishonest sender starts working in secret on a parallel chain containing an alternate version of his transaction.
The recipient waits until the transaction has been added to a block and z blocks have been linked after it.
Converting to C code Running some results, we can see the probability drop off exponentially with z. This process secures the blockchain by requiring would-be-attackers to redo the work of the block and all blocks after it i.
Nakamoto says that it'd be an extremely difficult task for an attacker to do just that, and that the probability of success diminishes exponentially the more blocks are added to a chain.
So how does proof-of-work protect the blockchain? In layman's terms, honest CPUs in the network solve each hash's math problem.
As these computational puzzles are solved, these blocks are bundled into a chronologically-ordered chain. Thus the term blockchain.
This validates to the entire system that all the required "math homework" has been completed. An attacker would have to redo all the completed puzzles and then surpass the work of honest CPUs in order to create a longer chain -- a feat that would be extremely unlikely if not impossible.
This sequence makes Bitcoin transactions irreversible. Nakamoto points out that honest nodes in the network need to collectively possess more CPU power than an attacker.
As mentioned in earlier sections, nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will work on extending it. This section shows why it's important to announce transactions to all nodes.
It forms the basis for verifying the validity of each transaction as well as each block in the blockchain. As mentioned earlier, each node solves a proof-of-work puzzle and thus always recognizes the longest chain to be the correct version.
As time progresses, the blockchain's record grows and provides assurance to the entire network of its validity. The first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block.
This achieves two things. Second, it's a way to initially distribute new coins into circulation since there is no central authority to issue them.
The new coin rewards nodes -- aka Bitcoin miners -- for expending their time, CPU and electricity to make the network possible.
They can also be rewarded with transaction fees. Nakamoto envisions a limited number of coins to ever enter circulation, at which point miners can be incentivized solely by transaction fees that are inflation-free.
New coins also incentivize nodes to play by the rules and remain honest. An attacker would have to expend a ton of resources to threaten the system, and getting rewarded by coins and transaction fees serve as a deterrent to such fraud.
Mining gold requires labor, water and equipment and it's an activity similar to Bitcoin mining. Since a maximum of 21 million Bitcoins will ever be mined, the system can be free of inflation.
Therefore, Bitcoin can serve as a sustainable store of value, similar to gold. Compare that to fiat currency, such as the U. Due to inflation, the dollar has devalued nearly 97 percent since Bitcoin's incentive program is a mechanism that protects the peer-to-peer electronic payment system.
The issuance of new Bitcoin as well as transaction fees keep nodes honest. Because it wouldn't be worth it to attack the very system that forms the foundation of their wealth.
As the saying goes, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. To save disk space, Nakamoto says that nodes can discard data from old transactions, with only the root of the discarded transaction kept in the block's hash.
This enables the blockchain to remain intact, albeit with less data from old transactions. He briefly describes a process for compacting data.
But with Moore's Law, Nakamoto says that the future capacity of computer hardware should be sufficient to operate the network without miners having to worry about storage space.
In this section, Nakamoto provides a technical explanation of how to verify payments without running a full network node. That requires getting the longest proof-of-work chain and checking if the network has accepted it.
The verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network. But an attacker can create fraudulent transactions for as long as an attacker can overpower the network.
One defense against an attack is for network nodes to broadcast alerts when they detect an invalid block. Such an alert could prompt a user's software to download the full block as well as alerted transactions in order to confirm the inconsistency.
Nakamoto adds that businesses that receive frequent payments may want to consider operating their own nodes to achieve more independent security and quicker verification.
There are non-Bitcoin blockchain protocols that large companies are applying outside finance.
For example, a company can create an invite-only protocol that selects certain parties to participate in a private network of nodes.
The point is, there are many ways to set up a blockchain network that follows a different set of rules for verification.
Nakamoto describes one way to do so for a peer-to-peer payment system, but he says that businesses may want to adapt their processes based on their own unique circumstances.
Combining transaction amounts will result in more efficient transfers as opposed to creating a separate transaction for every cent involved.
In other words, it'd be simpler and more efficient to send three Bitcoins in a single transaction rather than create three transactions of one Bitcoin each, assuming the coins are sent to the same recipient.
0 comments on “Bitcoin Whitepaper”