Chat_133 - 比特币开发与争议：对话Antoine Poinsot

嗯。

Mhmm.

我们没有向操作员发送信号，而操作员与JPEG完全无关。

They we don't send a signal for the operator, and the operator is completely unrelated to to JPEGs.

他们最终并不在意。

And they don't care in the end.

而如果像反方的主观论点所说，他们若真在乎我们的感受，就会更在意些，但它更稀缺。

And if like the counter subjective argument is if they even cared about our feeling, they would care more, but it's it's more scarce.

就像前几天有人故意上传了1MB的JPEG文件，就是为了证明他们现在能做到——不管是否调整了系统限制。

Like someone someone did a one megabyte of return fucking JPEGs the the other day just to show that they were able to do it today with with or without course changing its limits.

这简直就是在给网络梗火上浇油，试图采取行动却暴露出你的无力，就像皇帝的新衣。

And it's like, it's just fueling the meme to try to do something about it, showing that you're powerless, that the emperor has no clothes.

而且说实话，这只会助长他们的网络梗，让他们持续更久。

And it's like, if anything, it would fuel their their meme and make them stay alive longer.

我认为这场闹剧绝对起到了这种效果。

I think the drama absolutely does that.

我深入思考过这个问题——这也是为什么很多人说这根本不是技术讨论的原因之一。

But and I thought a lot about this because and this is one of the reasons why I think a lot of people say this is not a technical discussion.

而另一边的人坚持说这只是技术讨论，但我认为这本质上是一场经济学辩论。

And then basically people on the other side of the aisle say it's only a technical discussion is I think a lot of this is actually a discussion of economics.

所以才会对这些问题有如此巨大的意见分歧——甚至是充满恶意的分歧。

And that's why there's so much difference of opinion or so vicious of a difference of opinion about a lot of this stuff.

因为毫无疑问，戏剧性事件会提升价值。

Because without a doubt, the drama increases the value.

懂我意思吗？

You know?

就像你说的，有人能在链上塞入1MB的操作返回值就是在炫耀'看我能做到什么'——正是因为人们现在关注这个功能是否可行才让这种行为有市场。

Like you said, somebody being able to stick a one megabyte op return into the chain is a look what I can do, and it is specifically because people are paying attention to whether or not you can do that right now that makes that viable.

但同时我认为这更像是闹剧的衍生品，就像现在如果我发推讨论操作返回值，马上就会有人效仿并引发大量讨论。

But I don't think At the exact same time, I think that is more of a playoff to drama, just kind of like, you know, if I make a tweet about Op Return right now, somebody does that, if somebody's sharing something about OpReturn right now, it'll get tons of posts.

但如果你两个月前这么做，或者三个月后再做，根本没人会在意。

But if you did this two months ago or you do it in three months, nobody's gonna care.

对吧？

Right?

就像围绕这个话题的活动和兴趣更多了。

It's like there's just more activity and interest around the topic.

我认为是经济讨论，因为我对这个问题思考了很多。

And I think the economic discussion because I thought about this a lot.

我认为正确的讨论方向应该是：这是否会引发类似COBRA法案的问题？

And this is where I think the right discussion is, is that this is an economic discussion is, are we creating a COBRA problem?

还是说我们会制造出'天啊'这样的麻烦？

Or are we creating a issue like Oh my God.

就像非洲象牙贸易那样，当时有几个政府确实严厉打击偷猎者，试图让象牙退出市场。

Like the ivory trade in Africa is there were a number of governments who actually have gone went super hard on poachers and trying to get ivory out of the market.

他们发现偷猎者藏匿了一批数量惊人的象牙。

And what they did is they found this this stash from a bunch of poachers of, like, an ungodly amount of ivory husks.

结果那些蠢货居然把它烧了，美其名曰'表态'。

And the idiots proceeded to set it on fire as, like, a statement.

实际上他们这么做导致象牙价格翻了四倍，因为市场供应突然中断了。

And what they actually did was increase the price of ivory like four x in the market and because it suddenly got the the flow suddenly just stopped.

他们真正应该做的是向市场大量投放象牙，并投资研发人造象牙。

And what they needed to do is they needed to flood the market with ivory, and they needed to invest in people making artificial ivory.

这才是他们该做的，就像实验室培育钻石那样以假乱真。

Like, that's what they needed to do in that was indistinguishable, kinda like lab grown diamonds.

这样才能彻底摧毁这个市场。

Like, that's how you kill the market.

是的。

Yeah.

而他们

And they

做了完全相反的事。

did the exact opposite.

对吧？

Right?

如果过滤器有效，这将是个很好的类比——它们试图达到的效果反而会意外地进一步助长事态。

It will be a good analogy to filters if they worked to that's what they would be trying to do and having the unintended consequences of fueling it further.

但幸运的是，它们并不起作用，也不会助长任何事。

But thankfully, they don't work and they don't fuel anything.

嗯，我的理由是... 抱歉打断一下。

Well, here's here's my reason why I just think excuse me.

我认为这个理由不完全适用于当前情况，因为JPEG这类东西本身并不真正稀缺。

My reason why I think that doesn't quite apply to this situation is because the JPEG and stuff itself is not actually scarce.

是在这场争议的背景下，才产生了某些附加价值。

It's in the context of the drama that there is some additional value.

所以我们实际上并不是在... 就像你说的，反正也没有办法彻底阻止它。

So we're not actually making the and, you know, just like you said, there's no there's no way to stop it anyway, like, in, a hard and fast way.

你唯一能做的就是稍微降低它的吸引力。

All you can do is just kind of disincentivize it.

比如，如果现在99%的节点都在尝试过滤或对铭文进行基础过滤，它们就不得不做额外的工作。

Like, if 99% of nodes right now were filtering were trying to filter out or did a base filtering for inscription, they would have to do extra work.

他们需要暂时支付。

They would have to pay Temporally.

也许吧。

Maybe.

一点点。

A little bit.

是的。

Yes.

暂时地。

Temporally.

必须进行某种调整，而且会有一场猫捉老鼠的游戏。

There would have to be some sort of adjustment, and there would be a cat and mouse.

就像，这就像是哈希现金。

Like, it's just it's just like hashcash.

比如，我想问你的问题是，哈希现金能阻止垃圾邮件吗？

Like, my my question to you would be, does hashcash stop spam?

就像，需要在电子邮件上做一点点工作量证明。

Like, the the need to do a tiny proof of work on an email.

它并不能阻止垃圾邮件。

It doesn't stop spam.

对吧？

Right?

你无法让垃圾邮件消失。

You can't like make spam go away.

但你可以通过措施降低其吸引力。

But you can disincentivize it.

甚至可能有人觉得，'哦，我的垃圾邮件更胜一筹，因为我完成了工作量证明'。

And there may even be some element of like, oh, my spam is better because I do a proof of work.

或许存在某种戏剧性因素，有人仍想大量发送垃圾邮件来证明工作量证明无法阻止这种行为。

It could be some drama element where somebody still wants to do a lot of spam to prove that proof of work doesn't stop this.

但在足够长的时间线上，这种行为自然会失去吸引力，因为成本收益比已经发生了微妙变化。

But over a long enough timeline, it's simply going to be more disincentivized because the cost to benefit ratio has alter has been altered just a little bit.

是啊。

Yeah.

但这个类比并不恰当。

But it's not it's not a it's not a good analogy.

电子邮件几乎算不上——这话已经说过很多次了。

Email is barely well, it was said multiple times.

这确实不是个好类比。

It's really not a good analogy.

不过如果我还是想继续这个类比的话，

But if I want to continue it, nonetheless,

你先说说为什么这不是个好类比？

what you say tell me why it's not a good analogy first?

因为这个类比经常被提及。

Because the analogy comes up a lot.

没错。

Yeah.

因为我们面临的问题是比特币区块链上的垃圾信息。

Because we are the issue is that spam on the Bitcoin blockchain.

嗯。

Mhmm.

与电子邮件垃圾防护的类比在于，除非附带工作量证明，否则你不会认为一封邮件是有效的，而比特币则不同。

The analogy with spam protection for emails is that you are not going to consider an incoming email as valid unless it has the proof of work attached, whereas it's Bitcoin you do.

所以这实际上并不完全相同。

So it's just not not actually not the same.

因此我认为，当你提到网络上99%的节点时，这会给JPEGers带来更高的成本。

It's so I think what would happen when you say if 99% of the nodes on the network, it would it would create more costs more costs for the JPEGers.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我能同意你的一点是，如果几乎没有人有经济需求在使用带有铭文的链上，可能

Where where I can agree with you is that if there is, like, almost no economic demand for using the chain with the inscriptions, probably

它们就会自然消失。

they would just go away.

但如果需求足够大——这也是我在文章中提出的论点。

But if there is enough and that's actually an argument that I gave in my write up as well.

有个观点认为，如果比特币核心的嵌套规则标准从一开始就阻止铭文产生，或许它根本不会兴起。

There is a point to be made that if Bitcoin Core's standard of nest rules were at the very beginning preventing inscriptions from happening, maybe it would have never taken off.

而如果它从未兴起——因为它只是靠模因效应创造需求——或许这就不会成为问题，至少现在不会。

And if it had never taken off, because it creates its own demand by virtue of being just a meme, maybe it would never have been an issue or not yet.

或许在未来才会成为问题。

Maybe it would have been in in the future.

不过确实。

But yeah.

总之，我们这里有一个具有重大经济需求的用例，表明如果99%的节点进行过滤，就会把当前的P2P中继网络当作静态网络处理。

Anyways, we are here with a use case that has significant economic demand and saying that 99% of the nodes, if they filtered, is treating the current peer to peer relay network as static.

它不是静态的。

It's not static.

如果99%的节点都不中继你的交易，人们就会改用另一个P2P网络来连接矿工。

If if 99% of the nodes are going to not relay your transactions, people are going to use a different peer to peer network to reach the miners.

所以没错，在非替代性P2P网络上运行几个节点会产生边际固定成本。

So sure, it's going to have the marginal fixed costs to spinning a few nodes on a non alternative peer to peer network.

但一旦完成，你就可以免费中继了。

But once it's done, you can just relay it for free.

或者说，与其他交易成本相同，没有额外费用。

Well, for the same cost as any other transactions, let's say, for no additional cost.

关键在于逻辑被颠倒了——如果比特币核心对抗比特币垃圾信息发送者，那么'Eat Food'机制反而是阻止垃圾信息发送者骚扰比特币。

So the real thing is that it's being turned on its head that if Bitcoin Core worked against the Bitcoin spammers, Eat Food prevents spammers from spamming Bitcoin.

不对。

No.

如果比特币核心对抗比特币垃圾信息发送者，反而会让比特币核心被淘汰。

If Bitcoin Core works against Bitcoin spammers, it's going to get Bitcoin Core obsolete.

人们只会另寻他法。

People are just going to do something else.

那么我的问题是这样的。

Well, here's my question then.

因为我观察到，除了那些明确攻击比特币的人之外，还有很多人会说：我能想出更昂贵、更不负责任的使用方式，比如用熊市多重签名之类的。

Because what I get the sense of and seem to see a lot outside of the people who are explicitly attacking Bitcoin, who are explicitly saying, I can come up with a more expensive and more bad steward way of using this, you know, like with bear multisig or something.

对。

Yeah.

先把这些人放一边，大多数想发布JPEG的人——可能我理解有误——但他们这么做是因为不想运行节点。

Put those people aside, is that most of the people who want to publish JPEGs, and maybe I'm wrong about this, but they're doing it because they don't want to run a node.

他们试图在网络上获得免费托管服务。

They're trying to get free hosting on the network.

我认为这里的经济模型存在轻微脱节：一方面是希望将内容上链的人的经济考量。

And I think there's a slight disconnect in the economics there because there's the economics of people who want to have something on chain.

另一方面是那些希望内容上链的人——比如想存储并展示但不愿自己操作——的经济考量。

Then there's the economics of people who want to have something on chain, like want to store it and to show it off without having to do it themselves.

因为这就像存在公地悲剧问题，然后又演变成市场问题。

Because, like, there's a there's a tragedy of the commons problem, then there's a market problem.

一方在为存储空间付费，而另一方（节点）在提供存储空间却未获得报酬。

And one of them is paying for the space and one of them is storing the space but not getting paid for it, like, on the node.

所以这实际上解释了为什么由节点网络进行过滤才是经济模型对齐的做法。

So this is actually why I think I actually think there's an element to this that explains why the node network doing the filtering is actually the economically aligned way to do it.

因为JPEG发布者唯一能解决的方案，比如建立单独的MIM池之类的，就是他们自己运行节点。

Because the only way that JPEGers then actually solve it by having like a separate MIM pool or whatever is if they run nodes.

这样我们就能判断他们是想搭便车，还是愿意运行存储自己JPEG的节点——因为他们会启动移除过滤器的节点，并建立自己的独立MIM池。

So we would actually know whether or not they want to free ride on this or if they wanna run a node that stores their JPEGs because they'll spin up nodes that remove the filters and, you know, have their own, like, separate MIM pool.

我认为长远来看问题自然会解决。

And then I think it just comes out in the wash in the long run.

但如果他们实际上只是想搭便车，只想付钱让他人的节点永久存储他们的JPEG，而自己不愿运行节点，那么这些过滤机制实际上可能会增加一些边际成本，这恰恰表明他们就是懒得这么做。

But if they actually just want to free ride and they just want to pay to have their JPEG stored on other people's nodes forever and they don't run nodes themselves, well, the filters might actually do some incremental like add some marginal cost that just makes it a little bit like that's specifically a claim that or a notion that they are too lazy to do it.

而且对他们来说越容易操作越好——无论是软件层面（比如他们需要自己构建工具）还是需要搭建自己的小型节点网络，无论具体形式如何。

And the easier it is for them to do it in both the software sense that, you know, like the they have to build the tools themselves or they have to build their they have to run their own little node network, whatever it is.

实际上我不认为这意味着人们会弃用核心节点，因为想运行比特币节点的人本来就不是那些想存储JPEG的人。

I actually I don't think it means that people switch away from core because I think all the people who want to run Bitcoin nodes aren't the ones trying to store JPEGs.

那些想存储JPEG的人恰恰是不愿自己运行节点的，他们希望别人来托管——你看，

The people trying to store JPEGs are the ones that don't want to have to run this, and they want other people they want, like, look.

我把这东西放在区块链上，自然有别人替我存储。

I got this thing on the blockchain, and other people are storing this for me.

但重申一次，这只是对当前情境下人们想法的假设。

But again, that's an assumption about what people are thinking and doing in this context.

我不知道你是否观察到不同情况，或者有相反的证据。

And I don't know if you see something different or you have evidence to the contrary.

有意思。

Cool.

所以你的论点是：这实际上会迫使他们运行节点，而这本身就是成本，因为运行比特币节点需要开销，而他们由于懒惰不愿意这么做。

So your argument is that well, actually, it would get them to run nodes, which is in itself a cost because because it's a cost to just be running a Bitcoin node, and they would not be willing to run the nodes because they're lazy.

这个理解准确吗？

Is is that a fair assessment?

关键点在于：如果比特币核心中继网络过滤掉铭文数据，铭文用户就不得不自己运行节点——或许是Libra Relay之类的？

That's the the main point here that it would if most of the if the Bitcoin Core relay network filters out the inscriptions, the inscription people would have to run Bitcoin, I don't know, Libra Relay.

而实际上运行节点并非零成本。

And actually doing so is not for free.

嗯。

Mhmm.

同步区块链需要五个小时，之后你还需要连接其他节点。

It takes five hours to sync the blockchain, and then you need to connect to other nodes.

他们实际上不会承担广播铭文的成本。

And they would not actually bear this cost to broadcast their inscriptions.

我

I

想抱歉。

think sorry.

这是

It's

请继续。

Go ahead.

如果我误解了

If I mischaracterize

不一定是他们不愿意承担广播铭文的成本，而是我认为大多数想做铭文或其他事情的人只是觉得他们能从中赚点小钱，实际上并不关心，他们只想要简单的方式。

Not necessarily that they wouldn't bear the cost to broadcast their inscriptions, but that I think that most people who want to do inscriptions or whatever just think they're gonna make a little money on the inscription and don't actually care about like, they they do just want the easy thing.

他们是在追逐快钱。

They're they're they're chasing easy money.

我想铸造一个东西然后卖掉换钱。

I wanna mint a thing and then sell it for money.

而且我认为，如果看起来存在障碍，他们不愿意——他们无法从比特币节点获得免费托管，这实际上会缩小那些愿意通过开放网络进行操作的人群的市场。

And I I don't think there if it appears as if there is there are barriers to that and they don't want to they're not getting free hosting from Bitcoin nodes, that it actually shrinks the market for the people who are willing to actually go around the open network to do it.

我理解你的论点。

I understand your arguments.

重申一次，目前没有一个开放的网络。

Again, there is not one open network.

我们可以拥有任意数量的网络。

There can be as many as we want.

今天只有一个是因为

Is just one today because

我们需要建立课程体系。

we have to build course.

所以他们必须——他们必须启动一个。

So they have to they have to start one up.

是的。

Yeah.

他们必须自己启动一个，或者需要有人替他们做这件事——这正是背后经济需求的主要论点。

They have they would have to start one up or someone would have to do it for them, which is the main argument behind the economic demand here.

这个用例背后蕴含着数百万美元的价值。

This is use case that has millions of dollars worth behind it.

所以我确信如果他们不愿意，总会有人愿意代劳。

So I'm sure someone will be willing to do it for them if they don't want to.

我只是认为经济激励是很好的动机，能非常准确地预测人类行为。

It's just I think that economic incentives are good motivation, like a very strong predictor of human behavior.

基本上我认为，只要桌上有钱可赚，就总会有人站出来拿走这些钱。

And I think that basically if there is some money on the table, someone is going to stand up and take the money that is on the table.

比特币核心不能忽视比特币的经济现实。

And Bitcoin Core cannot just ignore the economic reality of Bitcoin.

试图让我们对铭文视而不见，让当前开放的网络对铭文视而不见，只会让使用比特币核心的人对这些铭文和实际经济现实视而不见。

Trying to blind us from inscriptions, blinding the current open network from inscriptions is just going to blind people of using Bitcoin Core from these inscriptions and from the actual economic reality.

这就是现实。

Like, that's just the reality.

如果我们试图忽视现实，现实会反过来找上我们。

Reality is going to be get back to us if we try to ignore it.

当然，我们可以尝试改变比特币来改变经济激励，从而减少它们的经济动力。

So sure, we could try to change Bitcoin to change the economic incentives so that then they have less economic incentive.

但你在中继网络上没有经济激励。

But you don't have economic incentive at the relay network.

这就像是法律框架设定了经济激励，而法律框架又是由共识规则决定的。

It's like it's like the kind of the legal framework sets the economic incentives, and the legal framework is set by the consensus rules.

我有个问题想问你。

I had a question for you.

首先，你对此的总体看法是什么？

So, first off, what's your general opinion?

你是对此持模糊态度，还是确实认为这是负面的？

Are you kind of ambiguous to it or do you actually see it as a negative?

我特别指出这是对网络的不良管理行为。

I specifically refer to it as being a bad steward of the network.

对吧？

Right?

你是否认为人们在链上发布JPEG这类东西是件负面的事？

Is do you see it as a negative for people to post JPEGs and, you know, this sort of stuff on chain?

或者，当存在不可花费的UTXO时，这是否纯粹意味着存在成本？

Or or is it purely like a well, when they have unspinable UTXOs, there's a cost here.

因此，从网络角度来看，这纯粹会产生成本。

And so, like, that is a purely from the network perspective that has a cost.

但总的来说，你对JPEGs有什么看法？

But the JPEGs in general, what's your what's your take on that?

非货币用途可能是个重要方向，或许这么说更准确。

Non monetary use case is a big one, maybe the better way to put it.

我觉得我不喜欢它，因为这通常与骗局有关。

I think I don't like it because it's usually related to scams.

是的。

Yeah.

我不喜欢骗局。

I don't like scams.

所以我也不是很喜欢JPEGs，但它们没那么让我担心。

Therefore, I don't like JPEGs too much, but they don't worry as much.

比如之前有些在链上存储钱包描述符的方案。

Like for instance, there were these schemes to store wallet descriptors on chain.

我认为这完全是个坏主意，但我也没那么在意，因为它与骗局没有直接关联。

I think it's completely a bad idea, but it's also something that I care less about because it's it's not directly related to a scam.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我认为我担心的是围绕元协议可能产生的奇怪激励机制。

I think I'm concerned about the weird incentives you could create surrounding meta protocols.

比如，如果大部分经济活动与其他协议相关而非使用比特币支付，这可能会扭曲网络的激励机制。

Like, if most of the economic activity is related to other protocols than using Bitcoin to make payments, it can skew the incentives of the network.

不幸的是，元协议并不像Ordinals所展示的那样与任意存储和链相关。

Unfortunately, meta protocols don't are not, like, related to arbitrary storage and chain as as was demonstrated by Ordinals.

它们只是占用一些实际的比特币或常规UTXO，并赋予其不同的含义。

They just take some actual Bitcoin or regular UTXOs and assign a different meaning to it.

你对此无能为力。

Nothing you can do.

只要人们愿意参与这种集体幻觉，这种情况就可能发生。

As long as people want to take part in the collective hallucination, it can happen.

所以，是的，这就是我最担心的地方。

So that's, yeah, that's where I'm most worried.

我对骗局感到恼火。

I'm annoyed at scam.

我担心被榨取的微小价值，也沮丧于没人真正想使用比特币。

I'm worried about minor extracted value, and I'm frustrated that nobody actually wants to use Bitcoin.

比如，如果过去一两年每个区块的平均法币费用是每字节200聪，这就不会成为讨论话题。

Like, it would not be a discussion if the average next block fiat was 200 sites per per v byte for the past years or two.

因为他们存储在链上的大量任意数据就像大数据一样。

Because the large arbitrary data that they are storing on chain is like large data.

因此，费率变动对他们的影响将远比对某些人更严重

Therefore, the fee rate would severely impact them much more than someone may

每v字节5聪到20聪的费用会彻底摧毁这个市场。

5 sats per v byte to 20 sats per v byte would obliterate Yeah.

那个市场的很大一部分。

That that so much of that market.

是啊。

Yeah.

不。

No.

实际上我我并没有那么担心。

I'm I'm actually less concerned.

很多人都在讨论这个问题，说'哦，人们没有在使用比特币'。

A lot of people talk about this is that like, oh, people aren't using Bitcoin.

我对链上发生的事情其实要放心得多。

And I'm I'm significantly less concerned for what's going on chain.

显然，如果这种趋势无限持续下去，确实会是个问题。

Like, obviously, I think if this trend continued indefinitely, it would be a concern.

但我真的不这么认为，因为我觉得我们还没有完全开拓这个市场。

But I really don't think it is because I just don't think we have we have branched the market.

我认为大家仍然从零售角度思考这个问题，关注有多少人会在商户使用、进行面对面点对点交易这类事情。

I think everybody still thinks about this in the context of retail and how many people are going and using this with merchants and peer to peer in person transactions and that sort of thing.

我理解这种观点，但在我对货币历史的无尽探索中，我并不认为这会是最先发生的。

And I get that, but also in my endless exploration of monetary history, I just don't see that coming first.

我认为那是在达到某个临界点后的自然反应——当所有人都看清时。而且我觉得我们离这个时代，这个章节，或者说下一个周期已经不太远了。

I see that as a reaction after you get this point where everyone sees and I don't think we're super far away from like, maybe this era, maybe this chapter, maybe the next, like, cycle.

但我们正接近这样一个时刻：所有人都将比特币视为值得拥有的资产，一种可以简单持有和储蓄的东西。

But we're getting very close to the the point where everyone sees Bitcoin as something desirable, something to simply hold and to save in.

我认为这种观念转变必须首先发生，商家才会理所当然地接受它，因为他们自己也想要。

And I think that shift actually has to occur first before it makes sense for a merchant to go, well, obviously, I would just accept this because I also just want it.

就像在其他情境下，我也会选择持有比特币。

Like, just in another context, I would like to hold Bitcoin.

关于这一点，我准备做个视频详细说明。

And in the con and I'm gonna do a video about this.

现在不必深入讨论这个。

It's don't have to, like, get into it.

这算是题外话了。

This is kind of a side sideline here.

但我认为零售领域并非终极目标。

But I also think that retail is not the final boss.

零售问题会在解决终极目标后自然解决，而这个终极目标是国际汇兑和美联储资金转账系统。

Retail is what gets solved after we fix the final boss, and the final boss is international exchange and Fedwire.

这涉及国际清算银行等机构，因为在这些市场上结算的价值量巨大，产生的经济失衡和系统性问题的规模动辄数百甚至数千亿。

It's the Bank of International settlements and stuff because the amount of value that is settled in those and where the imbalances and economic problems that are created, like the systemic problems are created, are in markets that move like, hundreds and literally even thousands.

比如国际外汇市场每年结算额高达2.1千万亿美元，而比特币才3万亿美元。

Like, I think the international exchange market is, like, 2.1 quadrillion dollars per year settled, And Bitcoin is still at 3,000,000,000,000.

相比之下，比特币甚至还没出现在版图上。

Like, it's not even it doesn't even show up on the map.

我认为这正是比特币的发展方向，因为它要解决的是大额支付的需求。

And I actually think that's where Bitcoin is going because it's about being able to make like, you need to be making large payments.

你得用200美元的手续费转移十亿美元资金，才会让人恍然大悟：哦，原来如此。

You need to be moving a billion dollars for a $200 fee to be like, oh, yeah, duh.

我确实认为这就是它将要分叉的方向。

And I I do think that's where I think it's gonna branch.

我认为我们将经历一段极其艰难的转型期，当我们真正迈入那个阶段时，过程会非常非常痛苦。

I think we're gonna have a horrible transition period where it's just gonna be hard like like really, really painful when we break into that.

但这是机构层面、国家层面和企业级别的引入方式。

But that's the institutional state level, corporate level introduction.

等他们真正开始认真使用比特币，并且用比特币相互交易时，我们所有人都会懊恼不已。

Like, once they get into Bitcoin in earnest and they are trading with each other in Bitcoin, that's when all of us are gonna be like, goddamn it.

现在我在比特币上做的每件事都麻烦得要命。

Everything that I do in Bitcoin now is a pain in the ass.

到那个时候，JPEG图片可能会变得更加稀有。

And at that point, I think JPEGs will they'll probably be even more rare.

因为如果有人要这么做，他们可能得花上二三十万美元才能在区块链上存一个文件。

Like, because if somebody does it, they'll have spend literally $200,000 $300,000 to get one on the damn chain.

但我基本上认为，如果比特币继续被视为可靠、高诚信度的货币体系——我认为它会的——那么到那时这个问题就会消失。

But I do basically think it goes away at that point if it continues to be seen and adopted as a reliable, high integrity monetary system, which I I think it will.

我其实并不太担心这个。

I'm I'm I'm really not that worried about it.

不过话说回来，你觉得对立面还有什么可能是干扰因素？或者针对这次OP_RETURN变更的具体背景，你认为还有什么关键问题需要解决？

But aside the point aside the point, what else do you see on the opposing side is maybe either a distraction or what other major point do do you feel needs to be addressed about the context of this op return change specifically?

关于这次OP_RETURN变更的具体情况，我两天前在推特上发过相关观点。

About this op return change specifically, maybe the well, I I posted on Twitter two days ago.

关于机械师与我们核心观点中冗余部分的矛盾在于，他们一方面声称过去两年由于铭文导致过滤器失效，

The one of the mechanics redundant points with our core is contradicting itself because he there they have been saying that the filters do not work for the past two years because of inscriptions.

现在却又想调整返回参数的大小，这恰恰说明过滤器是有效的。

And now they want to change the size for returns, which means the filters work.

首先，我不喜欢'过滤器'这个表述框架。

Well, first of all, I don't like the framing of filters.

这应该只是标准性规则。

It should be just standardness rules.

或者我们可以称之为'比特币核心规则'，以区别于比特币的基本规则。

Or maybe we can we could call them Bitcoin Core rules besides Bitcoin's rules.

但我想通过OpReturn说明的关键在于，这关乎现有标准交易。

But the the point that I was trying to make with OpReturn is that it's about existing standard transactions.

无论怎样人们都会进行这类交易。

So people are going to make these transactions no matter what.

即便是通过NUTS协议，你们最终也会中继这些交易。

And even even with nuts, you are going to relay them.

所以重点只是让现有交易减少危害性。

So it's just about making existing transactions just less harmful.

机械师的论点令人困惑——他混合了两个概念：既说过滤器无效，又说需要因其有效性而为某些群体调整。

And Mechanic's point was confusing well, merging two concepts of the filters are not effective, but yet we need to change them because they are effective for these guys.

关键在于，过滤器无法阻止事物上链——真正决定链上内容的是比特币共识规则。

The thing is that they are they are not effective to prevent things from going on chain because what regulates what goes on chains is Bitcoin's consensus rules.

它们的有效性体现在阻止未确认交易通过您的网络传播，因为该网络由比特币费用和有效性规则定义。

They're effective to prevent things from getting relayed through the unconfirmed transactions to your network because this network is defined by Bitcoin cost and downness rules.

这只是两种由不同事物定义的不同事物。

It's just two diff different things that are defined by different things.

而这里BitVM桥的应用场景，就有一个c three应用。

And the use case here of the BitVM bridges, there's c three app.

但c three仅仅是一个实例。

But c three is just just an instance.

它们只是第一批。

They're just the first.

BitVM桥希望这笔交易通过比特币核心的点对点网络进行中继，因为这是获取及时确认的最快最佳方式。

The BitVM bridges, they want this transaction to be relayed through the Bitcoin Core peer to peer network because that's the timeliest the the best way to get timely confirmation.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

英语真难。

English is hard.

这是获取及时确认的最佳方式。

The best way that's the best way to get timely confirmation.

这也是防止他人干扰你交易确认的最佳方式。

And it's the best way to prevent other people from messing with your confirmation of your transaction.

确实。

Yeah.

但JPEG用户真正看重的并非属性。

But it's not properties that are valued really by JPEGers.

JPEG用户想要的是永远不变的存储。

What JPEGers want is forever unchanged storage.

所以他们可以等，再等两小时，仅通过10%的哈希率就能让JPEG保持不变。

So they can wait they can wait two more hours for the for the JPEG to go unchanged by only accessing 10% of the hash rate.

他们其实并不在意。

They don't really care.

他们也不太在乎抗审查性。

They also don't really care about censorship resistance.

他们只需依赖第三方API即可。

They can just rely on a third party API.

但Bitvm桥接方案，就像大多数比特币扩容结构一样，存在这些需要在欺诈发生时上链的交易。

But the Bitvm bridges are really, as most Bitcoin scalability constructions, they they have these transactions that need to go on chain in case of fraud.

这就像只是个欺诈解决机制。

It's like just a fraud resolution mechanism.

嗯，是的。

And Yeah.

这只是一笔挑战交易。

It's just a challenge transaction.

对。

Yeah.

没错。

Yeah.

挑战。

The challenge.

如果交易对手能阻止你确认这笔交易，他们就能卷走你所有的钱。

And if if your counterparty can prevent you from getting this transaction confirmed, they can steal all your money.

嗯。

Mhmm.

因此，这就是他们想使用比特币核心中继网络的原因。

And therefore, that's why they wanted to use the Bitcoin Core relay network.

而且他们不想依赖第三方。

And they don't want to rely on a third party.

如果他们想对链进行垃圾信息攻击，本可以依赖第三方。

If they wanted to spam the chain, they could rely on a third party.

但他们没有。

They don't.

好的。

Okay.

我想这里的微妙之处在于——至少我认为应该——或者说至少要明确这个背景：垃圾信息过滤器并非无效，而我们试图移除这些过滤器正是因为它们有效。

I would say probably the nuance to that is, at least I think, would be or at least let's address the context of spam filters don't work, but we're trying to remove the filters because they work.

关键在于抑制动机。

Is that it's about disincentivizing.

我认为这其中存在一种抑制因素。

And I think there's an element to like, it does disincentivize.

这确实增加了难度，迫使你必须绕些弯路，因为确实如此。

It does make it harder and you have to go around some additional route because Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

但这只是边际性的。

But it's marginal.

这这太

It's it's so

其中很小一部分是边际性的。

small Of it it's marginal.

当然这是边际性的。

Of course it's marginal.

毫无疑问。

Without a doubt.

然后就是，你知道，我们无法完全阻止这件事。

And then that's, you know, we can't that's the whole thing of, like, we can't stop it completely.

但问题在于，为此付出边际成本值得吗？

But the question is, is a marginal cost to this worth it?

而且为了这个潜在用例（不是Citria或BitVM，而是往区块里塞垃圾，比如非货币性内容）试图维持这种边际成本，

And does trying to maintain that marginal cost for this potential use case, Not not Citria or BitVM, but for just putting crap in the block like, non non monetary stuff in the blockchain.

是否值得通过他们尝试的各种方法来坚持维持这种边际成本，以至于如果这些方法大多被忽视，人们只回应'我们如何为此增加边际成本'？

Is it worth fighting and trying to maintain that marginal cost through the different methodologies that they attempt to the point that if they are largely ignored and responded to with just a, how do we add a marginal cost to this?

我们如何为此增加边际成本？

How do we add a marginal cost to this?

他们会直接放弃吗？

Do they just stop and give up?

我真心觉得这件事会自行逐渐消失。

And I genuinely kind of think it's going to peter out on its own.

我觉得某种程度上已经这样了。

I think it kind of has.

除了最近，由于我们说过戏剧性事件重新带来价值，戏弄人又成了件有趣的事。

And except for recently, it became the fun thing to do to troll people again because like we've said, the drama has added its value back.

但如果你看看费用和他们支付的金额，以及他们在链上竞标的空间大小——那是什么时候来着？

But if you look at the fees and what they paid and how much space they're bidding for in the chain is that back in What was it?

当序数和铭文推出时，场面非常疯狂。

When ordinals and inscriptions launched, there was huge I mean, it was just crazy.

而现在基本上只在区块空置时才会出现。

And then basically now it only shows up when the blocks are empty.

就这样。

That's it.

就像在说‘哦，我们有空闲空间’。

And it's like, Oh, we have free space.

那就随便铸造些垃圾吧。

Let me mint some crap.

在这种背景下，我担心的是开放这些选项，而不是思考如何增加边际成本——这两种视角，这两条路径。

And I think in the context of That's one of the things that worries me about this is that having these options opened up rather than how do we add a marginal like, the the two perspectives, the two two paths of how do we add a marginal cost?

我们该如何处理这个既成事实？

How do we just, like, make this how do we just deal with the fact that this is here?

这两种不同的视角和路径我们都可以考虑。

Like, those are two different perspectives and paths that we can kind of take.

我的担忧在于，好吧，我们该如何处理，如何让他们随心所欲，同时找到方法让他们以最无害的方式行事，这是在强化或可能重振我们能在比特币上做这些事情的观点。

And my worry of going down the, okay, how do we just deal how do we just, like, let them do whatever and how do we figure out let them let them do it in the most harmless way is reinforcing or potentially reinvigorating the we can do these things on Bitcoin.

现在，我知道我们已经某种程度上讨论过这个问题，因为你认为不，由于OprahTurn成本更高，他们宁愿使用铭文。

Now, I know we've already kind of addressed that because you think, no, because OprahTurn is more expensive, and they they would just rather use inscriptions.

但另一方面，这也是为什么我认为开放OprahTurn不会有多大改变，尤其是考虑到Citria。

But there's also the other side of that is the that's also why I don't think opening up the OprahTurn really changes much, and especially with Citria.

你知道，那个...那个...桥梁是什么？

You know, what's the what's the what's the bridge?

它的阈值是什么？当使用Opera Turn更便宜时，然后变得更贵或...

What's the threshold for it's cheaper with Opera Turn and then it's more expensive or then it's

更便宜？那都是胡扯。

cheaper That's with bullshit.

推特上流传过一张图表，显示使用铭文比upreturn更便宜，但它巧妙地忽略了他们已经可以进行的裸多签操作。

There there was a there was a chart that was going on Twitter where, oh, it's cheaper to use inscriptions versus upreturn, but it's conveniently missing bare multistake that they can already do.

所以这并不是为常规交易提供了一种更便宜的新方式。

So it's not appending a new a new way that is cheaper for for standard transactions.

所以这个阈值是...我不...

So the the threshold is I'm not

甚至不确定我见过这张图表。

even sure I saw this chart.

但是那个...是的。

But what's the yeah.

不。

No.

不。

No.

你没事。

You're fine.

有门槛吗？

There a threshold?

那么，西特里亚，他们用奥普特伦（挑战交易）来做这件事实际上会更便宜吗？

So, Citria, would it actually be cheaper for them to do this with Opretern, the challenge transaction?

还是用铭文会更便宜？

Or would it be cheaper with inscriptions?

你知道吗？

Do you know?

不知道。

No.

用加密会更便宜，但他们必须使用交易输出。

It would be cheaper with encryptions, but they have to use transaction outputs.

等等，他们需要存储144字节。

Well, wait, they need to store 144 bytes.

所以我认为他们正好在门槛上。

So I think they're right at the threshold.

好的。

Okay.

但他们需要这笔交易。

But they need the transaction.

他们需要交易输出中的数据。

They need the data in the transaction output.

出于技术原因，它不能出现在见证部分。

For technical reason, it cannot be in the witness.

所以他们愿意承担成本，不是想在区块链上塞垃圾，而是试图构建一个该死的层级。

So they are ready to bear the cost they're not trying to put crap on the blockchain because they'll try to do a fucking layer.

是啊。

Yeah.

他们的背景有点不同。

Their context is a little bit different.

他们正在尝试

They're trying

找到某种方法来证明链外事物的状态。其实还有个问题，虽然有点跑题，但我真的很想听听你的看法：有没有办法展示或证明铭文？因为就像你可以查看一条链。

to have some way to prove the state of a thing that is off Another question actually, and this is kind of a tangent, but I really wanted to get your thoughts on this, was is there a way to show or demonstrate inscriptions as because it's like you can look at a chain.

你可以看着它说，哦，这是个铭文。

You can look at it and say, oh, this is an inscription.

有没有办法可靠地查看或证明这是不可花费的，从而可以丢弃它？

Is there a way to reliably see or prove that this is unspendable so that it can be dropped?

比如，能不能把它当作类似销毁地址的证明来处理？嗯，你

Like, can it not be treated kind of like a proof of burn address, Well, you

它不是不在输出里。

it's not it's not in an output.

它是在一个输入里。

It's in an it's in an input.

原来如此

So it

哦。

Oh.

哦，我想是的。

Oh, I guess it is.

这说得通。

That makes sense.

技术上来说，有件事你可以做，是的。

So one thing you can do technically Yeah.

可能是这样，不过我希望不会误导人们认为这是个好主意。

Could be, well, I hope I won't be confusing people into thinking it's a good idea.

你可以做的一件事是，一旦它只是见证数据，而见证数据仅用于验证交易的有效性。

One thing you could do is that once it's just a witness, and the witness data is only useful to verify the validity of the transaction.

对。

Yeah.

没错。

Yeah.

一旦验证通过，你就不再需要存储它了。

Once you have validated, you do not need to store it anymore.

所以如果你担心磁盘空间，可以直接从磁盘上删除所有见证数据。

So you could just prune all the witness data from your disk if you're concerned about your disk.

不过一般来说，你并不需要担心磁盘空间问题。

But you're not concerned about your disk, generally.

你更关心的是验证新区块需要维护的活跃状态，因为这会增加你的验证成本。

You're more concerned about the active state that you need to maintain to validate new blocks because it's going to increase your cost of validation.

比如，你的链上存储并不会增加验证成本，而且无论如何都受比特币共识机制的限制。

Like, your on chain storage is not increasing your cost of validation, and it's bounded by Bitcoin's consensus anyways.

所以你关心的是哪些内容会进入链状态，进入UTXO集合。

But so you are concerned about what goes into the chain state into the UTXO set.

铭文并不会进入链状态。

Inscriptions do not go into the the chain state.

好的。

Okay.

好的。

Okay.

所以从技术上讲，确实如此。

So technically, also yeah.

这是我在你和Mechanic的播客中注意到的另一点。

That's another thing I I noted in the podcast you did with Mechanic.

就像是，这让运行节点变得更困难。

It's like, it makes it harder to run nodes.

这不是事实。

It's not true.

从技术上讲，这实际上会严格降低验证成本。

Technically, it it makes it makes it strictly less expensive to validate.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

我不...我不...我总体上也不认同这个观点，无论从哪个方向看，都不认为其中一方能让情况变得更好。

I don't I don't I generally don't agree with that either in in either direction that one of them makes it better.

就像，显然，如果大家都使用Op Return，对节点来说会比铭文更好。

Like like, obviously, if everybody was using Op Return, it would be better on the nodes instead of inscriptions.

但在这次变更的背景下，我认为这影响不大，因为正如你所说，使用它并没有金钱激励。

But in the context of this change, I don't think that makes much of a difference because as as you said, again, there's no monetary incentive to use.

比如说，Citria挑战交易是唯一需要处理的情况。

Like, let's say, Citria challenge transactions are the only thing to do it.

我记得当时是Linus和Citria的一位开发者在讨论。

I think it was even it was Linus and then one of the devs from Citria.

我应该把它保存在某个地方了。

I think I saved it in one of the things.

这种事情几乎根本不可能发生。

Like, this this would be something that would almost never happen anyway.

你懂吗？

You know?

你基本上掰着手指头就能数清在这种情境下需要担心的输入或UTXO数量。

Like, you're you're literally counting on your your fingers how many inputs or UTXOs that you would have to worry about on that in that context.

而我们讨论的是5000万到1亿个多余的UTXO。

And we're talking about 50,000,000, a 100,000,000 excess UTXOs.

对吧？

Right?

所以我突然忘了要说什么。

So I lost my train of thought.

我们一直在心里想着要谈这个。

We were Keep in talking mind.

本来有件事我打算回头再说的。

Had something that I was gonna go back to.

我有件事想问你。

I had something I wanted to ask you about.

你刚才提到什么来着？哦，抱歉。

What had you just brought up about oh, sorry.

对。

Yeah.

不。

No.

这会让运行节点变得更困难。

Make it harder to run a node.

反过来看，它其实也不会增加难度，因为理论上说，数据膨胀和多余UTXO的问题——比如凭空多出5100万个UTXO——你懂的。

And then in the reverse is that it also just doesn't make it harder because, like, theoretically, like, the idea of bloat and extra UTXOs that don't need mean, you know, you have 51,000,000 extra UTXOs.

是的。

Yes.

那确实会增加运行节点的难度。

That makes it harder to run a node.

但就这个OP_RETURN问题而言，我认为OP_RETURN对节点运行难度没有正反两方面影响。

But in the context of this op return issue, I don't think op return affects it either direction.

哦，好吧。

Oh, Well yeah.

这就是问题所在。

That's the that's the thing.

对吧？

Right?

即便在我们一起录制播客时，我们也在反复讨论，筛选铭文、筛选OP_RETURN，而实际上正如你所说，这个上返（upreturn）根本无关紧要。

Even during the podcast together, we we flipped back between, oh, filtering inscriptions, filtering the op return, and really the upreturn is just a nothing burger, as you as you said.

我认为讨论的核心，也是需要解决的重要问题是：我们是否要筛选铭文？

The real meat of the discussion, which I think is important to address, is do we want to filter inscriptions?

是啊。

Yeah.

我不认为我们需要筛选，但至少这是个更有趣的话题——增加机会规模不会改变任何事，尤其是考虑到Bitvim桥每年在挑战交易中只会产生五个输出，这些输出最终只会变成永远无法花费的废输出。

I don't think we want, but it's at least a more interesting topic that increasing the size of the opportunity is not going to change anything if only for the five outputs per year that Bitvim bridges are going to have in the challenge transactions that is not going to end up in forever unspendable outputs instead.

嗯。

Yeah.

我确实认为分歧点就在这里。

And I really think that's where the disagreement is.

这显然就是立场对立的两派激烈争论的焦点——尽管双方可能都不同意我的观点，但我认为本质上是这种分裂观念。

That that's certainly where the the passionate two sides of this aisle are is and and people on either side may disagree with me, but I think it's the idea of that division.

我觉得比特币技工（Bitcoin Mechanic）想表达的也是这点：这是文化的转变。

And I think this is what Bitcoin Mechanic gets at too, is that this is a change in the culture.

这是关于我们如何处理这个问题的转变。

This is a change in how do we treat this?

我们面临的问题是：一方面要如何在非货币使用场景中持续增加边际成本，另一方面又要如何确保非货币成本造成的损害最小化？

We have the path of how do we continue to add marginal cost to non monetary use cases versus how do we just make sure that non monetary costs do the least damage possible?

或许可以同时考虑这两个方面。

And maybe an argument for both.

比如，我们可以同时朝两个方向努力。

Like, is that we go both directions at the same time.

我们尽量将其损害降到最低。

We try to make it as non damaging as possible.

那么，我们是否可以利用节点网络来抑制某些行为，或者增加某种边际成本？

And, you know, do we use the node network as a way to try to disincentivize or add some sort of a marginal cost?

但最终我们又回到这个局面：如果不是几乎所有节点都参与，就起不到什么实质作用。

But we end up back in this situation where, like, if it's not basically all nodes, then it doesn't do much of anything.

要知道，如果只有5%的网络节点在进行过滤或运行验证，这在整体格局中根本无足轻重。

You know, if, like, 5% of the network is filtering or running knots, I that means that means nothing in the in the grand scheme of things.

确实。

Sure.

但这其实与节点数量没有必然联系。

But it's not really it it doesn't have to do with the number of nodes.

我认为节点数量并不是关键因素。

I think the number of nodes is not very relevant.

我认为真正重要的是绕过机制的经济动机。

I think what's relevant is the economic incentive to go around.

嗯。

Mhmm.

你有动力组建一个新的点对点网络吗？

Do you have any incentive to form a new peer to peer network?

你有动力转而使用矿工的私有API吗？

Do you have any incentive to use the private API of the miner instead?

嗯。

Mhmm.

在那些我能看到标准化规则必须被使用的地方，是为了防止这类事情自举发生。

Where where I can see standardised rules having to use is to prevent such things from bootstrapping.

因此对于尚未存在的事物，阻止其标准化或许能避免经济需求被自举。

So for things that do not exist yet, preventing them from standardness can maybe avoid the economic demands being bootstrapped.

这个论点背后可能存在某种情况。

There might be a case behind this argument.

我对此表示理解。

I'm sympathetic to it.

但如果这种需求通过其他方式被自举，Bitcoin Core将不得不适应比特币。

But if such demand is bootstrapped by other means, Bitcoin Core will have to adapt to Bitcoin.

只是Bitcoin Core无法改变比特币。

It's just Bitcoin Core cannot change Bitcoin.

共识规则可以改变比特币，但Bitcoin Core的政策无法改变比特币。

Well, the consensus rules can, but Bitcoin Core policy cannot change Bitcoin.

其实我有个问题。

I've got a question actually.

这实际上让我想到了另一个话题。

This actually brings me to a different topic.

我在Marcellus上读到一篇很棒的文章，真正试图探究差异的根源所在。

I read a really good piece by on hosted Marcellus, really trying to get at the heart of where the difference comes from.

因为，实际上一个大问题就是矿工中心化，即矿池为所有算力创建区块模板这一事实。

Because, like, one of the issues like, the big issue actually is miner centralization, is the fact that mining pools are creating block templates for all of the hash power.

而那些所谓的'矿工'其实并不是真正的矿工。

And people who are quote unquote miners are not miners.

他们并没有运行节点。

They're not running nodes.

他们只是在为矿池进行哈希运算。

They are hashing for a mining pool.

而这正是让像Mara这样的公司能够出售Slipstream服务的原因——他们利用他人的算力来获得足够大的网络份额，从而提供有价值的服务。在我看来，Ocean的伟大之处就在于此，无论你对机制有何看法，我认为这是当前比特币领域最重要的项目之一，因为长期去中心化——甚至削弱Mara这种能力——关键在于矿工是否自己构建区块模板？

And this actually is exactly what allows somebody like Mara to sell Slipstream, to to sell this service is because they are using other people's hash power in order to get a large enough portion of the network in order to sell a meaningful service, which means that the centralization of mining pools like, this is what's great in my in my opinion about Ocean and why I think you know, whatever you think about mechanic aside, think it's one of the most important projects happening around Bitcoin right now because the long term decentralization like, even undermining Mara's ability to do this is do we have miners building their own block templates?

因为你看，我觉得这很有趣——如果挖矿完全去中心化，这就不是问题了。

Because See, I I that's interesting because if mining was entirely decentralized, it would not be an issue.

我们甚至不需要讨论政策了，因为人们可以在区块里包含任何他们想要的内容，没人会抱怨。

We wouldn't we didn't even talk about policy anymore because people would just include whatever bullshit they want in in their blocks and nobody would cry about it.

就是这样。

It's just Yeah.

如果挖矿去中心化，只要金融交易不出高价，你就能拥有世界上所有的JPEG图片。

If mining was decentralized, you would have all the JPEGs in the world as long as you do not outprice them with financial transactions.

就是说，JPEG的出现并非因为挖矿中心化。

It's just say, like, the JPEGs are not due to mining centricity.

不一定。

Not necessarily.

这是倒退的。

It's backward.

倒退。

Backward.

实际上在带外环境下，我认为最终将由经济网络来决定。

I actually in the context of out of band, like, I think it would be it would be the economic network that would decide.

是的，会有矿工仅仅为了手续费而存在，但我认为还有作为良好管理者保护投资的成分，因为想想看

Like, yes, there will be miners that are just there for buying the fee, But I think there is also an element of being a good steward in protecting your investment because think

用我的 是的。

using my Yeah.

抱歉。

Sorry.

请继续。

Go ahead.

我对此的观点是，很多人长期以来认为如果比特币允许所有这些其他功能，或者欢迎加密项目回来制造垃圾币之类，那么比特币...假设整个加密市场约8000亿美元，而比特币是20000亿

My my case for this is that, like, you know, a lot of people say have said for a long time that if Bitcoin enabled all of these other things or invited crypto back and let them make shit coins and stuff, that Bitcoin would be you know, let's say the whole crypto market is like $800,000,000,000 or something and Bitcoin is 2,000,000,000,000.

如果我们接纳所有这些，那么比特币将变成28000亿美元市值，而其他加密资产将不复存在。

Well, if we embraced all of that stuff, well, then Bitcoin would be $2,800,000,000,000 and there would be no crypto.

我认为这完全是个错误的框架。

And I think that's a completely wrong framing.

我觉得这是对各项价值来源的误解。

I I think that's a misunderstanding of where each of those things get its value.

实际上我认为如果我们接纳并试图让所有加密垃圾回归比特币，比特币的市值会更像10000亿美元。

I actually think that if we embraced and tried to invite all of the crypto crap back to Bitcoin, Bitcoin would look more like a $1,000,000,000,000 market.

我之所以这么认为，是因为它看起来像个低诚信的垃圾项目。

And the reason my argument for that is is that it looks like a low integrity garbage project.

关键在于人们的认知。

It it's about perception.

这东西看起来到底是什么样子？

It's what does this thing looks like look like?

目前比特币展现的是高诚信、不废话的形象。

Right now, Bitcoin looks like a high integrity, no nonsense.

我不需要你的胡扯、你的翅膀数字和你的JPEG图片货币网络。

I don't want your bullshit or your wing digits and your JPEGs monetary network.

加密货币就是法币风投，我想要的是新玩意儿。

Crypto is the Fiat VC, I want a new gadget.

这是我的应用，管它是什么愚蠢的赌场市场。

Here's my app for whatever stupid crap casino market.

我认为这些完全是两码事。

I think those are entirely separate things.

如果你把它们混为一谈，实际上只会破坏比特币高诚信的货币保障，因为人们看到的是山寨币、赌场和所有堆在上面的垃圾。

And if you conflated them, all you actually do is undermine Bitcoin's high integrity monetary assurances because people see the shitcoins and the casino and the all the garbage on top.

我认为我们对山寨币玩家的敌意在一段时间内是利大于弊的，因为他们觉得不受欢迎。

Our viciousness towards shitcoiners, I think, has been a a net positive for a while because they don't feel welcome.

所以他们干脆离开，创建了自己的链。

So they just went off and made their own chains.

我觉得这未免太往自己脸上贴金了。

I think this is giving ourselves way too much credit.

我认为比特币就是它本来的样子。

I think Bitcoin is what it is.

它已经被设计好了。

It's already designed.

因为我们不做任何改变，所以不需要邀请人们参与。

There is no inviting people because we are not changing anything.

就像比特币是被设计好的那样。

It's like Bitcoin is designed.

我们可以尝试改变比特币以确保他们不受欢迎，但它今天就是这样。

We can try to change Bitcoin to make sure that they don't feel welcome, but it is what it is today.

另外，我想回到之前关于矿工和挖矿激励的讨论，只是为了说明一点——如果节点实现更加去中心化，政策就不再是问题了。

Also, I want to get back to the previous discussion about miners and mining incentives just to drive If, the point well, if node implementation were more decentralized, policy would not be a thing anymore.

如果挖矿更加去中心化，政策就根本不会存在。

If mining was more decentralized, policy would not be anything anymore.

矿工之所以能真正遵守比特币的成本和诚实规则，唯一原因就是矿工总数本来就不多。

The only reason that we have miners actually respecting Bitcoin cost and honest rules is because there's not just not so many miners at all.

因此我们能在某种程度上依赖这些标准规则，这在某些方面是非常好的。

And that's why we can rely on these standards rules to some extent, which is very good for some reasons.

例如，这对使软分叉更安全非常有利。

For instance, it's very good to make soft fork safer.

我不确定一旦我们不再受这些规则的约束，我们该如何进行软分叉（如果有的话）。

I'm not sure how we are going to do soft forks, if any, once we do not have stand on this rules that are binding anymore.

如果要直观理解，你可以做个简单的思想实验：假设现有的8万个全节点都是矿工——在这种极端情况下，他们产生的交易会由自己打包。

If like and to get the intuition, you can just go through the simple third experiment of, all right, if every single of the 80,000 nodes, full nodes out there was a miner, like the extreme point, Well, transaction that they make, they would mine it.

因此，网络上的任何其他人都会接受这些区块。

Therefore, any other or anyone else on the network would accept the blocks.

所以，虽然肯定不会达到那种极端情况，但你越是趋向于挖矿去中心化的极端，就越需要依赖费用来判断——来判断。

So the more and sure, it would never approach that extreme, but the more you tend toward the extreme of more decentralization of mining, the more you're going to just have to rely on fees to judge- To judge.

对，判断那里正在发生的变化。

Yeah, judge what's going on change on that.

嗯，我的问题是，因为我认为无论链上发生什么，那都是更大的问题，你具体认为该如何纠正这个问题？

Well, my question is, just because I think that's the bigger problem regardless of what's going into the chain, how do you specifically think about correcting that problem?

还有，你与比特币核心的其他开发者共事时，是否认为这是核心能修复并做出贡献的，还是被视为另一层的问题？

And and how have you seen with, let's say, other developers that you work with in Bitcoin Core, how is that is that seen as something that that Core can fix and contribute to, or is that seen as a different layer?

因为我会给你我的观点，为什么我认为应该有某种方式，或者让ASIC能简单接入比特币节点，使人们能在矿池中构建自己的区块模板会非常有益。

Because in I'll give you my perspective on this and why I think there should be some or it would be wildly beneficial to have some easy way to plug an ASIC into the Bitcoin node that allows people to build their own block templates in a mining pool.

这是因为，最初的节点就是矿工。

And is because, like, the original node was a miner.

但在GPU、FPGA之后，你知道，一切都变了，最终我们有了ASIC，设备和节点分开了。

But after GPUs, FPGA, like, you know, everything, like, moved and then we ended up in ASICs, the device and the node separated.

现在我们有了ASIC和节点。

And now we have ASICs and a node.

对吧？

Right?

而核心客户端就是节点。

And the core client is the node.

嗯，我觉得应该有种非常简单的方法，让我能打开我的ASIC，并让它指向我的节点。

Well, I feel like there should be some like, I would love to be able to have a horribly simple way to turn on my ASIC, and it's pointed at my node.

然后无论矿池是什么，在这个语境下就是‘海洋’，它是唯一能让我使用自己的节点和数据来构建区块模板的地方。

And then whatever the mining pool is, ocean in this context, is the only one where I can just use my node and data and build my own block templates.

而我是一名矿工。

And I am a miner.

我在分享收益，但节点是由我自己运行的。

I am sharing the payout, but I am the one running my node.

我设定自己的策略，目前就是随意的。

I am setting my own policy, which right now is just whatever.

这只是个普通模板。

It's just the normal template.

我甚至不...我不确定，或者说默认情况下Knots的设置是什么，但我觉得除非我明确指示，否则它不会进行过滤。

I don't even I I don't, like or I guess whatever the the default is with knots, but I don't even think it's it's filtering unless I actually tell it to.

不过在这次之前，我确实升级到了Knots。

But I did update to knots, like, before all of this, actually.

但我认为这是Core的核心功能之一。

But I see that as, like, a core function of of core.

我很好奇你对此的看法，以及核心开发社区在讨论去中心化问题时的责任和思考。

And I'm curious how you think about it and or how the conversation in the development the core development community is in regards to the responsibility or the thoughts about that decentralization problem and Yeah.

矿池是这些讨论的一部分吗？

Are mining pools a part of that conversation?

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

Absolutely.

我认为挖矿中心化一直是个核心问题，无意冒犯，它至今仍是大多数讨论的焦点。

I think that mining centralization has been a core concern, no pun intended, forever and is still at the heart of most discussions.

因此即便在老派人士中也有关于改进区块传播的讨论，试图调整标准规则以适应比特币经济需求，避免激励矿工私下提交交易，因为私下提交会增加市场准入门槛。

So it's been a discussion even with the old guard of improving block propagation, of trying to adapt the standard rules to the Bitcoin economic demand to not incentivize private submission to miners, because private submission to miners increase the cost of entry on the market.

如果市场更具粘性，矿工就有更多机会审查交易。

If the market is more sticky, there is more opportunity for miners to censor transactions.

如今有很多相关讨论，比如BlueMath团队就在开发Stratum V2协议。

And there is many discussions nowadays around well, and then you have BlueMath that worked on Stratum V2.

这也是Saf分叉讨论中反复出现的话题。

And you also had this is also a recurring topic in the Saf fork discussions.

所以不是比特币核心部分，而是更广泛的比特币开发中涉及的矿工可提取价值问题。

So not the Bitcoin Core part, but the broader Bitcoin development part is minor extracted value.

是的。

And Yeah.

就比特币核心本身而言，例如这个Stratum V2计划。

With regard to Bitcoin Core itself, for instance, there's been this Stratum V2 initiative.