本文是精读比特币的白皮书，一次尝试
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
比特币：一个点对点的电子现金系统
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(机构)).
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.)
有了数字签名，P2P交易确实不需要第三方了，但是为了解决双重支付（同一笔钱，用了2次），必须要第三方，
这样最大的好处就损失了。
白皮书主要讨论： P2P电子现金系统（无第三方） + 双花问题（一个电子币，花2次？）
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.)
网络给交易打了时间戳，形成了一个不能被篡改的记录，除非你重来POW
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(超过，赶上) attackers.
The network itself requires minimal structure.
不是很复杂，小结构就能处理
Messages are broadcast (on a best effort basis准则,基础), 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. 简介 (Introduction)
Commerce( on the Internet) has come to rely almost exclusively (on financial institutions)( serving as trusted third parties )(to process electronic payments. )
exclusively:排他的， -- 只依赖于金融机构
While the system works well enough (for most transactions), it still suffers from the inherent(固有的) weaknesses (of the trust based model.)
Completely non-reversible(不可逆转) transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes(调节 纠纷).
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. )
冲突调节成本高，增加转账成本。（小额交易没有了，转账一笔2元手续费，50元封顶，不够银行手续费的呢）
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.)
wary 警惕 hassle 争辩，不断烦扰
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted (as unavoidable.)
一定比例的欺骗，不可避免
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.)
基于 加密验证，而不是信用 （通过密码学，让别人不知道我密码，但是通过方法，可以知道我确实有密码，拥有余额）
Transactions( that are computationally impractical to reverse) would protect sellers (from fraud), and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.
在计算上 不可逆，保护买卖双方 ？？？？不可理解啊
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.)
提出方案
The system is secure (as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.)
总结：
不可逆转是比特币的特点，但是也正是 勒索、暗网等罪恶，可以利用。只是回滚 分叉的代价太大了，不可实现。
以太坊被DAO盗走很多，回滚否？硬分叉的是ETH，坚持不分叉的是ETC。
2. 交易 (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(铸币厂), 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.
遍历所有哇？
In the mint based model, the mint was aware (of all transactions )and decided which arrived first.
铸币厂模式，铸币厂知道哪个算数
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.)
3. Timestamp Server(时间戳 服务器)
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.
所以具体时间点不重要，重要的是先后关系，有上一个区块的hash
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.
费劲九牛二虎之力，撞到随机数hash之后，开头8个0， 而 验证人只要短暂验证一下，就知道满足要求。
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 指数的(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).
一个ip投一票，他想的是 CPU算力，但是 现在这个情况 算力也是垄断集中
If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted （颠覆、破坏）by anyone able to allocate （分配）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补偿 (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.
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 proofof-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.
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.
属于矿工，没有输入，收款方是自己
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.
货币激励的方式，也是货币发行的方式
The steady addition (of a constant of amount of new coins )is analogous类比 to gold miners (expending resources)( to add gold to circulation).
In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.(花费)
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.)
不担心通货膨胀？ 想多了吧
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest.
If a greedy attacker is able to assemble（集合 装配） more CPU power (than all the honest nodes), he would have to choose (between using it )(to defraud欺骗 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有效性 of his own wealth.
7. Reclaiming Disk Space
Once the latest transaction (in a coin) is buried埋藏 (under enough blocks), the spent transactions (before it can be discarded )(to save disk space. )
To facilitate(促进 助长 使容易) 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.
莫克尔树 不懂啊！
Old blocks can then be compacted（压紧） (by stubbing off branches of the tree).(剪掉枝叶)
The interior(内部) hashes do not need to be stored.
A block header (with no transactions) would be about 80 bytes.
区块头？
If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year.
With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem (even if the block headers must be kept in memory.)
狭义上说，比特币钱包是指能生成和管理私钥和收发币地址(类似账号),并且能显示你的比特币余额的这样一个软件。
而从广义上说，私钥就是钱包。只要我有私钥，我就能消费掉余额。
通过seed 种子，创建私钥。
助记词 完全能轻易 转化成私钥。一定要 手动 物理保存助记词 不要连接网络，不要复制粘贴！
抛硬币256个，得到私钥，得到公钥，得到BTC收款地址
8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments( without running a full network node).
不运行全节点，也能验证支付
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.
As such, the verification is reliable (as long as honest nodes control the network), but is more vulnerable (if the network is overpowered by an attacker).
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.)
9. 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.
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.
10. 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.
As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner. 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.
11. 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 success event is the honest chain being extended by one block, increasing its lead by +1, and the failure event is the attacker's chain being extended by one block, reducing the gap by -1.
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. We can calculate the probability he ever reaches breakeven, or that an attacker ever catches up with the honest chain, as follows [8]:
Given our assumption that p > q, the probability drops exponentially as the number of blocks the attacker has to catch up with increases. 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. He doesn't know the exact amount of progress the attacker has made, but assuming the honest blocks took the average expected time per block, the attacker's potential progress will be a Poisson distribution with expected value:
To get the probability the attacker could still catch up now, we multiply the Poisson density for each amount of progress he could have made by the probability he could catch up from that point:
Rearranging to avoid summing the infinite tail of the distribution...
Converting to C code...
#include <math.h>
double AttackerSuccessProbability(double q, int z){
double p = 1.0 - q;
double lambda = z * (q / p);
double sum = 1.0;
int i, k;
for (k = 0; k <= z; k++){
double poisson = exp(-lambda);
for (i = 1; i <= k; i++){
poisson *= lambda / i;
}
sum -= poisson * (1 - pow(q / p, z - k));
}
return sum;
}Running some results, we can see the probability drop off exponentially with z.
q=0.1
z=0 P=1.0000000
z=1 P=0.2045873
z=2 P=0.0509779
z=3 P=0.0131722
z=4 P=0.0034552
z=5 P=0.0009137
z=6 P=0.0002428
z=7 P=0.0000647
z=8 P=0.0000173
z=9 P=0.0000046
z=10 P=0.0000012
q=0.3
z=0 P=1.0000000
z=5 P=0.1773523
z=10 P=0.0416605
z=15 P=0.0101008
z=20 P=0.0024804
z=25 P=0.0006132
z=30 P=0.0001522
z=35 P=0.0000379
z=40 P=0.0000095
z=45 P=0.0000024
z=50 P=0.0000006
Solving for P less than 0.1%...
P < 0.001
q=0.10 z=5
q=0.15 z=8
q=0.20 z=11
q=0.25 z=15
q=0.30 z=24
q=0.35 z=41
q=0.40 z=89
q=0.45 z=340
12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
