没有合适的资源?快使用搜索试试~ 我知道了~
首页"无需许可的区块链:未来互联网的关键性"
"无需许可的区块链:未来互联网的关键性"
需积分: 0 0 下载量 172 浏览量
更新于2024-01-18
收藏 1.55MB PDF 举报
“为什么无需许可的区块链对未来互联网至关重要?开放的意义”
本报告旨在对“区块链技术”进行非技术性但全面的解释,重点关注共识机制中的关键变量,并阐述了为什么无需许可的区块链对未来互联网至关重要。本报告零个重要理由支持这一观点。
首先,无需许可的区块链促进了创新和竞争。传统互联网的功能受限于集中化的控制和监管,这导致了市场上缺乏多样性和创新。然而,无需许可的区块链打破了这种限制,任何人都可以参与其中,以创建和共享新的应用和服务。这为开发者提供了更大的自由度和创造力,推动创新的发展,并增加了竞争力。
其次,无需许可的区块链增强了用户的权益和隐私保护。传统互联网存在安全漏洞和数据泄露的风险,用户的个人信息可能被不法分子滥用。然而,无需许可的区块链通过使用加密算法和去中心化的存储方式,提高了数据的安全性和隐私保护的水平。用户可以自己掌握和控制自己的数据,并选择与他人共享的程度,从而减少了数据泄露的风险。
第三,无需许可的区块链提供了更加透明和公正的交易环境。传统的金融体系容易出现不确定性和欺诈行为,这给用户带来了风险。然而,无需许可的区块链通过将交易信息公开和共享,实现了交易过程的透明化,减少了不确定性和欺诈的可能性。任何参与者都可以查看和审计区块链上的交易记录,确保交易的公正性和合法性,从而增强了信任和安全性。
最后,无需许可的区块链有助于减少中介环节和降低交易成本。传统互联网的交易往往需要借助中介机构,这增加了交易的复杂性和成本。然而,无需许可的区块链利用智能合约和分布式账本技术,消除了中介机构,使交易更加便捷和高效。这不仅减少了交易的成本,还能提供更快速和安全的交易体验。
综上所述,无需许可的区块链对未来互联网的重要性不可忽视。它促进了创新和竞争,增强了用户的权益和隐私保护,提供了更加透明和公正的交易环境,同时减少了中介环节和降低了交易成本。因此,我们应该积极推动无需许可的区块链技术的应用和发展,以实现更加开放、安全和可信任的互联网未来。
11
general and impressive-sounding heading “blockchain technology,” but for clarity this report will deal
with each separately and will ultimately focus on the third lump—consensus mechanisms—because it is
the architecture of this third component that has the most important implications for building useful and
well-functioning decentralized applications.
You can think of these three technologies as follows: peer-to-peer networking is how connected
machines communicate with each other, blockchains are the data-structures the connected peers use to
store important variables in the shared computation, and the consensus mechanism is the tool to generate
the shared and agreed-upon computation itself.
As we will discuss, the architecture of the consensus mechanism is important to consider. Different
choices may have different outcomes for users—more or less privacy, more or less choice, more or less
costs to participation. Just as the fundamental technical architecture of the PC and the Internet had long
term ramifications for the relative fairness, distribution and availability of computing and
communication tools, so may choices in the now unfolding architecture of consensus.
As we will explain, all new approaches to decentralized computing—whether closed or open—should be
celebrated and allowed to develop relatively unfettered by regulatory or government policy choices
much as the Clinton Administration took a light-touch approach to the development of the Internet in the
1990s.
7
In order to make those choices, however, policymakers need a basic understanding of how
consensus works and what it might help us build.
C. Platforms for Innovation: Open or Closed
A fundamental question in the design of any consensus mechanism is who can participate and how do
they participate in order to reach consensus over some shared computation. For many years it was
assumed that useful consensus mechanisms could only be developed if the participant computers were
identified through channels outside of the decentralized computing system itself.
8
In other words, it had
been assumed that useful consensus mechanisms could only be designed as closed or permissioned
7
President William J. Clinton, Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. A Framework For Global Electronic Commerce
(July 1997) available at https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-framework-970706#Annotated Version (“Governments
can have a profound effect on the growth of commerce on the Internet. By their actions, they can facilitate
electronic trade or inhibit it. Knowing when to act and -- at least as important -- when not to act, will be crucial to
the development of electronic commerce.5 This report articulates the Administration's vision for the emergence of
the GII as a vibrant global marketplace by suggesting a set of principles, presenting a series of policies, and
establishing a road map for international discussions and agreements to facilitate the growth of commerce on the
Internet.”)
8
See Jonathan Katz, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi, “Pseudonymous Broadcast and Secure Computation from
Cryptographic Puzzles” (Oct 2014) available at http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/857.pdf (“Standard models of
distributed computing assume authenticated point-to point channels between parties, where authentication may be
provided via some physical property of the underlying network or using keys shared by the parties in advance.
When security against a large fraction of corruptions is desired, even stronger pre-existing setup—e.g., a broadcast
channel or a public-key infrastructure (PKI) with which broadcast can be implemented—is often assumed. Such
setup may not exist in many interesting scenarios, especially open, peer-to-peer networks in which parties do not
necessarily have any prior relationships, and can come and go as they please. Nevertheless, such setup is often
assumed due to the prevailing belief that nothing “interesting” can be achieved without them, and in fact there are
known impossibility results to this effect.”). See also Boaz Barak, Ran Canetti, Yehuda Lindell, Rafael Pass, and
Tal Rabin. “Secure computation without authentication.” Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO 2005, pp. 361–377
(2005).
12
systems: to participate in the decentralized computing system a user would need to either (a) gain
physical access to a private underlying network architecture (e.g. an “intranet” rather than the Internet)
or (b) obtain an access credential via a cryptographic key exchange with other participants or by utilizing
a public key infrastructure.
9
Several such closed consensus mechanisms have been, and are continuing to
be, developed.
10
Closed consensus mechanisms, however, may not be optimal for the development of robust general
purpose decentralized computing systems. Access to dedicated network infrastructure and/or public key
infrastructure is costly, potentially limiting participation to larger players like businesses. In some cases,
these prerequisites are irreconcilable with the desired decentralized computing use case, as when
consensus is sought across a peer-to-peer network that allows peers free entry and exit.
11
If, as described
in the previous section, we believe that some decentralized computing systems should be open platforms
for democratic and diverse innovation (as were the PC and the Internet), then a permissioned system
seems like a poor choice.
Closed systems may be the smarter choice for limited rather than general purpose decentralized
computing tasks, where consensus need not be open to all potential participants and participants can be
centrally identified and trusted not to collude against the interests of the group (say when a consortium of
banks wants to settle inter-bank loans according to a decentralized ledger).
12
Permissionless systems are
arguably more difficult to scale,
13
to make private,
14
or secure than closed systems.
15
These, however,
are technical challenges that may prove to be fully surmountable.
9
Id.
10
See, for example, Paxos, a widely used protocol for generating consensus across a set of unreliable processors.
Marshall Pease, Robert Shostak, and Leslie Lamport, "Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults," 27 Journal
of the Association for Computing Machinery 228–234 (April 1980). We will not discuss Paxos or related consensus
mechanisms within this paper. These systems are generally fault tolerant only under an assumption that none of the
nodes are actively attempting to undermine the consensus by sending malicious and deceptive data to other nodes.
The ability to deliver a useful distributed computing service despite the presence of malicious and deceptive
participants is known in computer science as “byzantine fault tolerance” or BFT. See Kevin Driscoll, Brendan Hall,
et al, "Byzantine Fault Tolerance, from Theory to Reality" 2788 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 235 (2003).
There are BFT variants of Paxos, however, they do not scale effectively to large, highly distributed computing
networks. See Marko Vukolic, “The Quest for Scalable Blockchain Fabric: Proof-of-Work vs. BFT Replication,”
IBM Research (“This is true even for their crash-tolerant counterparts, i.e., replication protocols such as Paxos, Zab
and Raft, which are used in many large scale systems but practically never across more than a handful of
replicas.”). Accordingly, Paxos is a useful tool for generating an agreement amongst several computers all under
one individual or institution’s control. The technologies discussed in this paper are limited to newer mechanisms,
inspired by Bitcoin, that seek explicitly to generate agreement amongst a large number of computers controlled by
mutually distrustful strangers.
11
Katz, supra note 8.
12
See, e.g., Gendal Brown, supra note 6.
13
See Vukolic, supra note 10. See also Kyle Torpey, “Bitcoin Reaches a Crossroads With the Scaling Debate, Not
a Crisis” Bitcoin Magazine (May 2016)
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-reaches-a-crossroads-with-the-
scaling-debate-not-a-crisis-1462980183.
14
See infra p. 36.
15
See Robert Sams, “No, Bitcoin is not the future of securities settlement,” (2015)
http://www.clearmatics.com/2015/05/no-bitcoin-is-not-the-future-of-securities-settlement/ (“If you are prepared to
use trusted third parties for authentication of the counterparts to a transaction, I can see no compelling reason for
not also requiring identity authentication of the transaction validators as well. By doing that, you can ditch the
13
Much of the current skepticism exhibited by proponents of simpler, closed systems could prove
shortsighted. Similar issues of scale and usability clouded early predictions about computing generally.
For example, in 1951 Cambridge mathematician Douglas Hartree suggested that “all the calculations that
would ever be needed in [the UK] could be done on three digital computers—one in Cambridge, one in
Teddington, and one in Manchester. No one else would ever need machines of their own, or would be
able to afford to buy them.”
16
Similar skepticism stalked the early Internet. For example, in 1998
economist Paul Krugman wrote,
The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe's law”–which states
that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number
of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so,
it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax
machine's.
17
The development of the Internet defied many such skeptics. Before we discuss exactly how open and
closed consensus mechanisms work, it’s important to understand how the internet was and is itself open,
and how that openness proved essential to its success.
D. The Internet and Permission
The Internet is revolutionary in large part because it avoids the costs of permissioning described above.
The underlying protocols that power the Internet—TCP/IP (the Transmission Control Protocol and the
Internet Protocol)—are open technical specifications.
18
Think of them like human languages; anyone is
free to learn them, and if you learn a language well you can write anything in that language and share it:
books, magazines, movie scripts, political speeches, and more. Importantly, you never need to seek
permission from the Institut Français or the Agenzia Italiana to build these higher level creations on top
of the lower level languages. Indeed, no one can stop you from learning and using a language.
When Tim Berners Lee had the idea of sending virtual pages filled with styled text, images, and
interactive links over TCP/IP (i.e. when he invented the Word Wide Web),
19
there was no central
authority he needed to approve the project. He could write the standards and protocols for displaying
websites—the higher level internet protocol known as HTTP (the Hypertext Transfer Protocol), and
anyone with a TCP/IP capable server or client could run freely available HTTP-based software (web-
gross inefficiencies of proof-of-work and use a consensus algorithm of the one-node-one-vote variety instead that is
… thousands of times more efficient.”).
16
Lord Bowden, 58 American Scientist 43 (1970). This accurate quotation is generally considered to be the basis
for a notorious misquote of IBM President Thomas J Watson, “I think there is a world market for maybe five
computers.” Brader, Mark (July 10, 1985). "Only 3 computers will be needed..." (Forum post). net.misc
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/net.misc/390t08t_SZY/d2uJwCwcyQAJ
.
17
Megan Mcardle, “Predictions are Hard Especially About the Future” The Atlantic (Dec. 2010)
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/predictions-are-hard-especially-about-the-future/68471/.
18
Lydia Parziale, et al, TCP/IP Tutorial and Technical Overview (Dec. 2006) available at
https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/gg243376.pdf
.
19
World Wide Web Foundation, History of the Web, http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/ last
accessed Dec. 2016 (“Had the technology been proprietary, and in my total control, it would probably not have
taken off. You can’t propose that something be a universal space and at the same time keep control of it.”).
剩余61页未读,继续阅读
章满莫
- 粉丝: 35
- 资源: 316
上传资源 快速赚钱
- 我的内容管理 展开
- 我的资源 快来上传第一个资源
- 我的收益 登录查看自己的收益
- 我的积分 登录查看自己的积分
- 我的C币 登录后查看C币余额
- 我的收藏
- 我的下载
- 下载帮助
最新资源
- C语言快速排序算法的实现与应用
- KityFormula 编辑器压缩包功能解析
- 离线搭建Kubernetes 1.17.0集群教程与资源包分享
- Java毕业设计教学平台完整教程与源码
- 综合数据集汇总:浏览记录与市场研究分析
- STM32智能家居控制系统:创新设计与无线通讯
- 深入浅出C++20标准:四大新特性解析
- Real-ESRGAN: 开源项目提升图像超分辨率技术
- 植物大战僵尸杂交版v2.0.88:新元素新挑战
- 掌握数据分析核心模型,预测未来不是梦
- Android平台蓝牙HC-06/08模块数据交互技巧
- Python源码分享:计算100至200之间的所有素数
- 免费视频修复利器:Digital Video Repair
- Chrome浏览器新版本Adblock Plus插件发布
- GifSplitter:Linux下GIF转BMP的核心工具
- Vue.js开发教程:全面学习资源指南
安全验证
文档复制为VIP权益,开通VIP直接复制
信息提交成功