回复：不是建议
原始发布页
打开来源页面查看 1 个交叉存档
还在继续推敲这个想法……
网络唯一需要做的，就是判断对某个输出点的花费是不是第一次。
如果我们愿意让客户端保存自己资金的历史记录，那么有些信息可能不需要由网络存储，例如： - 金额 - 一笔交易中输入点与输出点的关联关系
网络会追踪一组相互独立的输出点。它不知道这些输出点属于哪些交易，也不知道金额是多少。客户端可以查明某个输出点是否已经花费，还可以提交一个满足条件的输入点，将其标记为已花费。网络会保留该输出点，以及证明它已被花费的第一个有效输入点。这个输入点会对其关联的下一个输出点与一个盐值所组成的哈希进行签名，因此，如果你知道盐值，就可以私下证明该签名签署的是某个特定的下一个输出点，但网络无法公开得知下一个输出点是什么。
我认为，客户端必须保存一直追溯到最初生成的新币的全部历史记录。付款人除了仍要与网络通信，以标记输出点已花费并检查这次花费是否为第一次花费之外，还必须向收款人发送数据。也许数据传输可以通过电子邮件附件完成。
客户端必须保存全部历史这一事实削弱了隐私方面的益处。经手大量资金的人仍然会看到大量交易历史。由于历史会以回溯方式向外发散，他们最终可能看到历史记录的大部分。可以把面额划分得更细，以限制这种发散，但经手大量资金的企业最终仍可能看到大量历史记录。
英文原文
展开英文原文
Still thinking this idea through...
The only job the network needs to do is to tell whether a spend of an outpoint is the first or not.
If we're willing to have clients keep the history for their own money, then some of the information may not need to be stored by the network, such as: - the value - the association of inpoints and outpoints in one transaction
The network would track a bunch of independent outpoints. It doesn't know what transactions or amounts they belong to. A client can find out if an outpoint has been spent, and it can submit a satisfying inpoint to mark it spent. The network keeps the outpoint and the first valid inpoint that proves it spent. The inpoint signs a hash of its associated next outpoint and a salt, so it can privately be shown that the signature signs a particular next outpoint if you know the salt, but publicly the network doesn't know what the next outpoint is.
I believe the clients would have to keep the entire history back to the original generated coins. Someone sending a payment would have to send data to the recipient, as well as still communicating with the network to mark outpoints spent and check that the spend is the first spend. Maybe the data transfer could be done as an e-mail attachment.
The fact that clients have to keep the entire history reduces the privacy benefit. Someone handling a lot of money still gets to see a lot of transaction history. The way it retrospectively fans out, they might end up seeing a majority of the history. Denominations could be made granular to limit fan-out, but a business handling a lot of money might still end up seeing a lot of the history.