區塊鏈，你是什么？定義一個產業熱詞
Almost every discussion of blockchains starts with the Satoshi white paper, but it is this very foundation that starts us on a path to confusion. Neither the terms 'blockchain' or 'block chain' appear there; there are 67 uses of 'block' and 27 of 'chain', but zero of 'block chain' or 'blockchain'. This aside though, let's see where this origin leads us.
幾乎所有關于區塊鏈的討論都緣起于中本聰的白皮書，但是正是這個基礎導致了我們產生了混亂。不管應該叫“區塊鏈”，還是“區塊 鏈”，這本書中提到“區塊”67次，“鏈”27次，但是“區塊鏈”或“區塊 鏈”的次數是零。先把這放在一邊，我們看看這本書把我們引導了哪兒。
The white paper is short; it's just nine pages long. The first mention of 'block' and 'chain' starts at the bottom of page 2, section 3, where there is a discussion of a basic timestamp server. Prior to this the white paper describes a series of design goals associated with the bitcoin design, such as the ability to allow two parties to transact without needing to trust a third party.
這本白皮書很短，只有9頁紙。第一次提及“區塊”和“鏈”是指第2頁下方，第3章節，那里討論了時間戳服務器的原理。在這之前，作者在書中描述了與比特幣相關聯的一系列設計目標，例如兩方在不需要信任和第三方的條件下，實現交易。
The statement of the design goals are fundamentally important. They set the scene for an implementation to meet those goals in which characteristics are layered upon each other, but it is informative to look at what each new layer does.
論述設計目標非常重要。它為之后介紹實現這些目標的應用做了鋪墊。這種應用的特點為一層疊加在另一處之上，我們僅僅需要了解每一個新分層的作用是什么。
In our quest for the nature of a blockchain we need to be careful to look for things that are its attributes, rather than characteristics of this first implementation.
在我們尋求解答區塊鏈本質的時候，我們必須仔細查看事物的屬性，而不是這些事物第一次應用的特點。
Transactions
交易
Section 1 of the white paper is an introduction and it is with section 2 that we see anything really substantive. Section 2 sets a scene for a digital coin, but it is described as being a chain of transactions in which the 'coin' is assigned to new owners. The coin is really a metaphor for a transaction history of linked transactions.
白皮書的第1章節是整本書的介紹，與第2章節相同，那里沒有任何有價值的東西。第2章為數字貨幣做了鋪墊，但是作者描述到，在一個交易鏈中，“幣”被分配給新的所有者。在這里“幣”只是關聯交易歷史的一個比喻。
Interestingly, section 2 also describes how a centralized system doesn't actually need to do this.
有意思的是，第2章節同樣描述了一個中心化的系統并不需要完成上述操作。
Blocks and chains
區塊與鏈
With section 3 we see the essence of the design pattern that might best describe the basis of a blockchain. It is given as something that is constructed from a series of incremental blocks of data, each of which can be identified by a cryptographic hash over its contents. In addition, each block incorporates the cryptographic hash of its predecessor block to ensure the construction of a chain.
在第3章節中，我們看到了設計模式的精髓，我們可以將其視為區塊鏈基礎的最好的描述。 作者設計了一種可增編的數據塊，每一塊都有一個哈希加密代號，該代號與其內容相關。此外，每一塊可以與其之前的數據塊的加密哈希值合并，這樣保證了整個鏈條的建設。
The block hashes are published as a form of widely witnessed evidence that demonstrate shows the existence of both the block data and the predecessor hash. Changing either the predecessor or the other data within the block would result in a different hash signature for the block that would not match the widely witnessed view.
公布的區塊哈希值，可作為區塊數據和其前一塊區塊哈希值存在的證據，在網上為眾人公開。如果改變前一區塊或者整個區塊內的其他數據，系統將會生成一個不同的區塊簽名，該簽名將無法與之前公眾見證的哈希值相符。
These characteristics are all fundamental, and without them we cannot construct anything interesting. What is equally interesting though is what is not stated as necessary at this point. There are no mentions of coins, no mentions of peer-to-peer networks, no mentions of mining, etc. Instead the suggestion is that publishing hashes in any widely disseminated form would be sufficient, with the two examples being given as publication in a newspaper or publication via Usenet.
這些特點是整個設計的基礎，如果沒有它們，我們將不可能建造出任何有趣的東西。另外有趣的是這里沒有提及的一些東西。這里沒有提及“幣”， 沒有提及點對點網絡，沒有提及挖礦，等等。相反，作者認為以廣泛的方式公布這些哈希值就已經足夠了，他給出了兩個例子，在報紙上或在用戶網上公布。
While we see some explicit characteristics these lead to a few implicit ones:
但我們發現一些特點，引導我們推測隱含的意思：
Publication of the hashes is meaningless unless those same hashes can be independently recomputed by an external observer who is given just the data from the blocks in the chain. It is this characteristic that enables the observers to not have to trust the originator of the chain of blocks; instead they are able to compare historical hashes for themselves.
除非外部的觀察者，獲得鏈條中區塊的數據后，獨立的進行計算，得出相同的哈希值，那么這種哈希值得公布才有意義。外部的觀察者不需要去信任區塊鏈的創作者，他們僅僅需要自己對比歷史哈希值即可。
Recomputing of the hashes requires that the algorithm by which the blocks is produced be deterministic and well specified. Without these our external observer cannot recompute the hashes.
重新計算哈希值要求一種特殊算法，而區塊正是基于這種算法而生成的。如果沒有這種算法，外部觀察者是不可能重新計算哈希值的。
Enabling peer-to-peer operations
使點對點成為可能
The next section, 4, of the white paper talks about proof-of-work. The first line is interesting: "To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer (P2P) basis, we will need to use a proof-of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash". Proof-of-work is not required to construct a blockchain, just to enable the peer-to-peer implementation of the timestamp server.
在下一章節，第4章節，白皮書論述了工作證明。第一行字非常有趣：“想要在點對點(P2P)基礎上布置一個分布式的時間戳服務器，我們必須使用一種與Adam Back Hashcash相似的工作證明系統。建立區塊鏈不需要工作證明，工作證明只是為了確保時間戳服務器的布置。
Subsequent cryptocurrency designs have shown there are potentially other approaches that can be taken here too (eg: forms of proof-of-stake, or hybrids of both), but if we are happy with a client-server approach then none of these are actually necessary.
隨后的加密貨幣設計證明還有其他的方法可以使用(例如：權益證明，或者兩者的混合)，但是如果我們覺得客戶-服務器模式已經符合要求，上述幾種方法就沒有任何必要了。
This is not to say that proof-of-work might not have some other uses with a blockchain design, but none seem fundamental to our quest.
我并不是說工作證明在區塊鏈設計中沒有其他的用處，但是似乎對我們的問題不是很重要。
Network and beyond
網絡和之外的其他內容
Section 5 describes the implementation characteristics of the bitcoin network. Nothing here explicitly extends the concept of what a blockchain is, or might require. Indeed, neither sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 (the final section) go on to explicitly offer any new ideas about what a blockchain might be.
第5章節描述了比特幣網絡的應用特征。這里并沒有明確，或者要求擴展區塊鏈的概念。此外之后的6,7,8,9,10,11或12章節(最后一章節)也沒有對區塊鏈提出任何新的想法。
Answers to our questions
回答我們的問題
If the Satoshi white paper is the origin of the blockchain design, we're left with a rather thin definition, but perhaps that is the most enlightening aspect. It is very explicit about particular design choices and their purpose, which tends to lead towards a realization that many of the claims about 'blockchains' may actually be a matter of implementation rather than architecture.
如果中本聰的白皮書是區塊鏈設計的源頭，他給我們留下了一個單薄的定義，也許這是最啟迪人的方面。作者對特殊設計選擇和它們的目的解釋的很明確，我們似乎可以得出：區塊鏈的各種論述可能僅僅是一個應用，而不是一個結構的問題。
Let's ask some specific questions then!
以下是一些具體的問題!
Must a blockchain have coins?
區塊鏈必須要“幣”的參與嗎？
There is an interesting discussion in the white paper about the need to provide incentives to those providing security to the P2P network to remain honest and as a means to introduce 'coins' into the system, but the discussion is clearly in the context of the P2P network. The concept of coins themselves is noted as unnecessary with a trusted 'mint'.
為P2P網絡提供安全的參與者，應怎樣提供激勵以確保他們誠實，是否在系統中引入“幣”，白皮書中對此有一番精彩的討論，但是很明顯，討論是在P2P網絡的框架內。書中認為“幣”的概念是不必要的可信任的“巨款”。
A trusted mint is not something desirable in a cryptocurrency, but there seems to be no requirement for coins if we wish to construct a chain of cryptographically-linked blocks. There is an interesting question to ask about trust, but we will return to that later.
可信任的巨款非加密貨幣所愿，但是如果我們想要建造一個加密鏈接的區塊鏈，我們似乎不需要“幣”。這是一個關于信任的問題，我們待會回來討論。
Must a blockchain implement smart contracts?
區塊鏈必須包含智能合約嗎？
From the perspective of the white paper this seems unlikely. The word 'contract' does not appear anywhere.
從白皮書的角度，這不太可能。白皮書中未出現“合約”一詞。
Might a blockchain enable smart contracts? Yes, of course it might, but it might enable many other things too.
區塊鏈上可以運作智能合約嗎?當然，區塊鏈還可以運作其他的很多內容。
Must a blockchain be programmable?
區塊鏈必須是可編程的？
Again the answer seems to be no. Neither the words 'program' or 'script' appear in the white paper.
同樣，這個問題的答案似乎是不。 白皮書中既沒有出現“程序” 也沒有出現 “腳本”。
A blockchain does have a requirement to be interpretable by one or more independent observers, so it is clearly built from one or more well-defined data structures. The block data structure must contain a previous block hash, and the cryptographic hash of the block must be performed in a very specific way, but none of these require that the data structure carry any notion of executable code.
區塊鏈的確對可解釋性有要求，區塊鏈必須能被一個或數個獨立觀察者所解讀，所以區塊鏈是建立在一個或多個定義明確的數據結構。本數據區塊結構必須包括前一個區塊哈希值，而且區塊的加密哈希必須遵循一種特殊的方式，但是上述原則中沒有任何一條要求數據結構含有可運行編碼概念。
Can a blockchain contain some form of program code? This is an implementation question and the answer is yes. Bitcoin includes a limited scripting language, and other systems, such as Ethereum, have subsequently attempted to support more elaborate programming models.
區塊鏈能夠包含某些形式的程序編碼嗎?這是一個執行的問題，答案為是。比特幣包括一種有限度的腳本語言，而其他系統，例如隨后的以太坊，嘗試著去支持更復雜的程序模式。
The choice to support such concepts seems more to be either expedience, or, more ambitious design goals, but it seems a blockchain need no more be 'programmable' than any other linked list data structure.
如果能設計區塊鏈從而支持這些概念，那么這種設計非常有雄心。 但是區塊鏈似乎需要更可程序化，而不是其他關聯數據列表結構。
Is a blockchain a database?
區塊鏈是數據庫嗎？
Once more the answer seems to be no. As before, the word 'database' does not appear in the white paper.
另外一個答案是否定的問題。如前文，“數據庫”這個詞沒有在白皮書中出現。
At its core, a blockchain is a special type of data structure. The blocks within the chain contain data, but this does not make it a database; at best the blocks represent the transaction log of a specific database implementation.
區塊鏈的核心是一種特殊類型的數據結構。鏈條內的區塊包含數據，但是我們不能將其看做數據庫;區塊鏈最多是代表特殊數據應用的一種交易記錄。
Similarly there are no semantics for querying a blockchain, any more than there are for querying a linked list. A specific implementation might allow for queries of either, but the implementation does not define the thing itself.
同樣，不存在對區塊鏈語義上的質詢，也沒有對關聯列表的質疑。一種特殊的應用也許會允許質疑，但是應用不能定義事物本身。
As a point of comparison, the IP packets for the TCP packets carrying this article are defined as data structures in a series of IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) RFC (Request For Comments) documents. The documents describe the form of the packets and their behaviour when they are transported. Recipients of those packets are able to make their own determinations of their validity without regard to any part of the network implementation between them and the originator.
作為一個比較點，TCP信息包的IP信息包中包含這種要求，我們定義它們是一連串IETF(互聯網工程任務組)RFC (置評請求)中的數據結構。上述兩個文件描述了信息包的形態和傳輸信息包時，信息包的行為。信息包接收方，可在沒有任何他們與信息發起者之間網絡參與的情況下，自己確定信息包是否有效。
An implementation of a router/firewall may offer a feature to capture those packets so that they can be analyzed later, and may offer database queries of those packets, but there is nothing in the nature of an IP packet that makes it a database, nor is there anything in the RFCs that would suggest otherwise. Implementation features and specification are very different things.
任何路由器、防火墻都可以接收這些信息包，然后稍后進行分析，這些儀器或提供信息表的數據質詢，但是盡管IP信息包有上述特性，我們并不把它當做數據庫，RFC中也沒有任何內容可讓我們推導到它是數據庫的結論。應用特性和自我屬性是完全不同的兩碼事。
Is a blockchain trustless?
區塊鏈不需要人與人之間的信任？
The answer here is no too, but that's because the question is too broad. A blockchain does allow us to require less trust than many traditional systems, but any implementation still requires some level of trust.
這里的答案依然是否定的，但這個問題太寬泛了。借助區塊鏈，與以往傳統系統相比，我們的確需要的信任更少，但是區塊鏈的任何應用的執行仍然需要某種程度的信任。
A recipient of block data must trust that it has been delivered without being compromised by some intermediary. The P2P distribution of blocks within the bitcoin and similar networks set out to try to minimize trust in peers, but even this model has potential failure points. Here are a few:
接收方必須信任，數據區塊的傳送過程中沒有被任何中間方改變破壞。 建立比特幣內的區塊鏈P2P分布網絡和其他網絡，其目的是降低人與人之間的信任要求，但是即使是這種模型，依然有某些潛在失敗點，舉例如下：
We trust that the blockchain software that we are running has not been compromised to deliver falsified data
? ? ? ?我們信任區塊鏈軟件，相信它在運行中不受破壞，而傳輸的是非偽造的數據。
We trust that the operating system under which our blockchain software is running has not been compromised to deliver falsified data
? ? ? ?我們信任運行區塊鏈軟件的運行系統，它在運行中不受破壞，而傳輸的是非偽造的數據;
We trust that the network processors providing connectivity to our system have not been compromised to deliver falsified data.
? ? ? ?我們信任為系統提供網絡的中央處理機，相信它不受破壞，而傳輸的是非偽造的數據。
"In code we trust" makes for an interesting mantra, but 30-plus years of malware, spyware, etc, informs us that this is a highly debatable strategy.
“我們相信編碼”是一個有趣的口號，但是惡毒軟件，間諜軟件等已有超過30年歷史，我們依然需要對這種戰略持有可疑態度。
A blockchain design does make falsifications harder for an adversary, and makes accidental errors dramatically less likely. We are able to "trust but verify" (within bounds), but this is still a significant improvement over blindly trusting. Most importantly, none of these trust minimizing characteristics are aspects of the P2P network design, but are instead intrinsic to the block encoding.
區塊鏈設計不能加大偽造的難度，但是可疑大大降低偶然失誤的可能性。我們可以“信任加證明”(在界限之內)，這已經是對盲目信任的巨大改進。更為重要的是，這些消減信任的特點不是P2P網絡設計的特征，但它們是區塊編碼的本質。
Must a blockchain be non-permissioned or can it be permission-less?
區塊鏈不需要許可或需要少量許可？
A blockchain is just a data structure, so really the question makes no sense. Who has the ability to read or write a data structure is a totally different question.
區塊鏈只是數據結構，所以實際上這個問題無意義。誰具有在數據結構上閱讀或編寫的能力完全是不同的問題。
Let's ignore this subtle distinction for a moment, though, and act as if the question might make sense. Consider the case of bitcoin; who writes the blockchain?
我們先放下這個微妙的區別，但是作為問題，似乎有意義。考慮比特幣的例子，誰在編寫區塊鏈?
The answer is that miners (or more precisely, block makers such a mining pool operators, not those who just hash blocks) get to write new blocks. Transactors on the network can provide candidate transactions to be included in blocks, but this does not guarantee blocks will ever contain those transactions. With bitcoin we talk about this being 'non-permissioned' because no-one needs any explicit permission to become a block maker.
答案是那些礦工(或更明確些，區塊創造者，例如礦池操作者，而不是那些制作哈希區塊的人)，他們在編寫新的區塊。網絡上的處理工提供備選交易，以便編入區塊，但是他們不保證區塊中包含這些交易。在比特幣中，我們將其稱為“未經允許”，因為沒有任何人需要明確的許可以成為區塊創造者。
If we consider other potential uses of a blockchain design, though, there are is an often very well-defined set of participants who we would wish to be able to write block data. In many cases this may even be one single participant.
如果我們考慮區塊鏈設計的其他潛在應用，其中有一伙明確的參與者，他們希望能夠編寫區塊數據。但在很多情況下，甚至只有一個參與者。
A critique levelled at such potential uses of a blockchain are that this makes it no better than a database, but a conventional database is something in which blind trust must be placed. Its internal state is generally unknowable. Even in its simplest uses a blockchain can at least provide a means to verify the state of such a system, and to do so in a way that enables histories to be validated. This is only the start of the possibilities, however!
這種對區塊鏈潛在用途的批評，讓區塊鏈比數據庫好不到哪里去，但是傳統的數據庫中，必須有盲目信任的一席之地，但是區塊鏈的內在狀態一般不為人所知。甚至是區塊鏈最簡單的用途可以至少為系統提供一種驗證方法，為了完成驗證，必須確保歷史能夠被驗證。但這只是多種可能的開始!
Is a blockchain the Internet of money (or the Internet of anything else)?
區塊鏈是網絡貨幣嗎（或者是其他事物的網絡嗎？）
Realistically, no, or at least not on its own.
從實際上來說，不會，或者至少它自身不會。
When we looked at "not a database" we also touched on why this claim doesn't really make sense. Superficially the argument seems seductive. The thought is that we can build lots of technology on top of a blockchain in the way that a network stack is layered.
當我們看到“不是數據庫”的表述時，我們同時也觸及了為什么這個論斷不對。從表面上看，論據比較吸引人。有一種看法是，我們可以在區塊鏈之上建立很多技術，如此，一個網絡疊加就是一個層。
There are many problems with this proposition, but the obvious one is that a blockchain is just a data structure. It makes a good candidate for being used to convey information across the Internet but doesn't enable anything in and of itself.
這種建議里有很多問題，但最明顯的是區塊鏈僅僅是一個數據結構。利用區塊鏈，我們可以在互聯網順利地傳遞信息，但是區塊鏈并不能生成其內在和外在的任何事物。
Separating the blockchain from any transport of a blockchain, however, does give some hope that blockchains may enable more reliable financial applications over the Internet. A clear separation also allows experimentation at each layer of the system design and this is a key characteristic that has enabled the Internet to be so successful.
將區塊鏈與區塊鏈的傳送區分開來， 的確為區塊鏈給出更多希望，即區塊鏈可以幫助創造更有效的互聯網金融應用。一個清晰的區分同樣讓設計系統上每個分層的試驗變為可能，這個也是當年確保互聯網成功的關鍵特點之一。
With the Internet, candidates for all layers of the network stack are able to be trialled, replaced or modified, allowing the best designs to win. Similarly the standards-based approach has enabled disparate implementations to work together without preventing commercial advantages from being sought and monetized.
利用互聯網，網絡堆疊的各層可以實現替換或更改，確保最好的設計勝出。與此相似，以標準為基礎的方法，確保不同的應用能協同工作，而不喪失貨幣化的商業優勢。
In the case of blockchains, we have already seen that there is a requirement to support external observers and this mandates a level of interoperability.
區塊鏈的例子，我們已經發現已經存在對外部觀察者的必要支持，這需要某種程度上的協同。
Last Thoughts
最后的幾點想法
We have looked at what a blockchain might or might not be, and perhaps seen some hints of what it might enable. The technology that underpins bitcoin can be used to build many things, and bitcoin's legacy should not just be bitcoin itself – it has shown the viability of something far more fundamental.
我們已經研究了區塊鏈可能是什么，或不是什么，區塊鏈能實現什么，可能大家已經發現了一些線索。我們可以將支持比特幣的技術用來做很多事情，比特幣的遺產不能僅僅是它自己—它已經為我們展示出了一個更基礎的性質。
The debate over what constitutes a blockchain won't end here, but we need to move the discussion forward and we need to resist the urge to allow it be just another marketing buzzword.
什么構成區塊鏈的討論不會就此結束，但是我們必須推進討論，我們必須遏制它變成另外一個市場時髦語的沖動。
To make that happen we need both clear terminology, and well-reasoned usage. We need to avoid conflating many different ideas, and we need technology claims to be realistic and achievable. If we fail then, eventually, the term 'blockchain' will be meaningless and have to be replaced. This seems like the wrong outcome.
要實現上述目標，我們不僅需要明確的定義，還需要合理的使用。我們應避免混合很多不同想法，我們需要那些可行的和可以達到的技術。如果我們失敗，“區塊鏈”這個名詞將沒有任何意義，必須被取代。這將為一個錯誤的結果。
If we succeed then the idea of a blockchain will not be the end of the story. Instead it will take its place as a layer upon which better and ever-more useful systems can be built.
如果我們成功，那么區塊鏈的想法將不是故事的結尾。區塊鏈將會是一個分層，之后會有更好的，更有用的系統建立在它之上。
By ?Dave Hudson from DigitalGlobal
