读_780 - 闪电注定失败！

美好的时光总是短暂的。

It was fun while it lasted.

我们永远会记得闪电艺术网站上那些像素化的低俗图片，以及那个无人敢转发到被政府宣称'全民皆恶'国家的闪电火炬表情包。

We'll always have the pixelated dick pics on the Lightning Art site, the Lightning Torch meme where everyone was scared to send it to people in countries the state told us is full of nothing but bad people.

我们仍将见证托管账户间那些'滋滋作响'的卫星转账。

We'll still have the zapping sats from custodial account to custodial account.

我们正步入围墙花园的时代。

Into the era of walled gardens we go.

要是你真把前面那些话当真了，快去照照镜子，然后狠狠给自己一耳光。

If you took any of that seriously on any level, go look at yourself in the mirror, and then give yourself a good hard slap in the face.

比特币世界的精华，此刻为你发声。

The best in Bitcoin made audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，这里是《比特币之声》。

I am Guy Swan, and this is Bitcoin Audible.

大家好，最近怎么样？

What is up, guys?

欢迎回到《比特币之声》。

Welcome back to Bitcoin Audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，你认识的人里对比特币了解最多的那个家伙。

I am Guy Swan, the guy who has read more about Bitcoin than anybody else you know.

今天我想先预告下，我们即将进行新的解读，下周还有让我超级兴奋的专题报道。

And I wanna start out today, we're doing another read, and we have take coming next week that I am really excited about.

敬请期待。

So stay tuned for that.

别忘了订阅频道。

Do not forget to subscribe.

特别感谢迈克尔推荐这篇文章，我最初应该是在音频笔记里看到他分享的。

But a shout out to Michael for this article, because he posted it in the audio notes, I believe, is where I first saw this.

这个真的让我笑翻了。

And this one just cracked me up.

Shinobi有时候说话特别有水平。

Shinobi has a way with words sometimes.

这个是关于闪电网络的缺陷，以及人们完全没意识到其中存在的权衡取舍、激励机制或时间锁漏洞利用，仿佛这些都是前所未闻的全新消息。

And this one is about the failings of lightning and how nobody had any idea that there were trade offs or incentives or time lock exploitations, and that it this is all brand new news that no one has ever heard about it.

所以详细说明所有这些内容很重要，或者类似这样的话。

And it's so it's important that we detail all of this out or something like that.

在进入这段内容后那个人的观点之前，我会先让Shinobi来说。

I will let Shinobi do the talking before we get into the guy's take after this piece.

但我也想向在Fountain上打赏了1万聪的Clarkian致谢。

But I also wanna give a shout out to Clarkian who dropped a 10,000 sat boost on Fountain.

谢谢你，先生。

Thank you, sir.

我对此深表感激，并会确保每一聪都物尽其用。

It is very much appreciated and I will make sure every last sat counts.

我对Fountain越来越印象深刻了——前几天我惊讶地发现（可能在节目里说过，我记得是在音频笔记里说的，但如果我在播客里说过而你听到了，就当我没说）。

I've been increasingly impressed with Fountain and I I was I was really shocked the other day to find out, I may have actually said this on the show, I thought I said it right in the audio notes, but if I said this on the podcast and you heard it, ignore it and pretend I didn't say it.

但我很惊讶Fountain的听众基数居然比Spotify还大。

But I was surprised that Fountain actually has a larger listener base than Spotify.

Spotify的听众占比大约是10.5%，而Fountain有11%左右。

Like Spotify was like 10.5% of the people who listen to the show and Fountain was like 11%.

两者非常接近，但还是让人感叹。

Like it was it was really close but it was like, wow.

这确实相当令人印象深刻。

That's that's kind that's actually pretty impressive.

我感觉之前对你们关注得不够。

And I felt like I didn't give you guys enough attention.

所以我打算养成在Fountain上互动的习惯，毕竟我在Spotify和Apple Podcast上没什么选择余地。

So I'm gonna try to make a better habit of actually engaging over there on fountain since I don't really have option on Spotify and Apple Podcast.

它们就像消失在虚空里一样，你懂的。

They're just kinda like in the void, you know.

我...我真的不认识那边的人，也没法跟任何人交流。

I I don't really know any I can't talk with anybody over there.

基本上就只有Twitter和Noster这两个平台。

It's just Twitter and Noster, basically.

不过还是想提一下这件事，顺便特别感谢Clarkian的大力助推。

But anyway, just wanted to mention that, and a a shout out to Clarkian for the the massive boost.

本周的助推之王。

King booster for the week.

好的。

Alright.

接下来我们快速感谢赞助商，然后马上进入正题。

With that, let's thank our sponsors really quick and then we will jump right into the show.

CoinKite公司及其产品线：Coldcard硬件钱包、OpenDime、BlockClock、BlockClock mini以及TapSigner。

CoinKite and the makers of the cold card hardware wallet, the OpenDime, the BlockClock, the BlockClock mini, the the TapSigner.

说真的，他们提供了太多出色的比特币硬件安全方案和酷炫产品，比如SATS卡、BlockClock这些经久不衰的产品，始终为比特币生态打造优质工具——既能保障比特币安全，本身又是很酷的比特币周边。

Literally, so many amazing Bitcoin hardware solutions security, and also just like cool stuff, the the SATS cards, the BlockClock, like it just, it been around for an incredibly long time and they've always just made awesome products for Bitcoin, both to keep your Bitcoin safe and also just to just because they're cool Bitcoin products.

快去了解他们的产品，别忘了使用优惠码Bitcoin Audible可享9折，链接和详情都在节目备注里。

Check them out, explore what they have to offer, and don't forget you can get 9% off with code Bitcoin Audible, Link and details will be right in the show notes.

现在让我们开始今天的阅读环节。

With that, let's get into today's read.

文章标题是《闪电网络注定失败》。

And it's titled Lightning is Doomed.

这篇现实核查文章探讨了闪电网络的局限性及其长期可行性问题。

A reality check on the limitations of the Lightning Network and what that means in terms of its long term viability.

不，它并非注定失败，但很可能不会如你所预期的那样被使用。

No, it's not doomed, but it probably won't be used the way you expected it to be.

作者：Shinobi。

Written by Shinobi.

闪电网络注定失败。

Lightning is doomed.

序数词带来的高额手续费已经彻底扼杀了比特币非托管式扩容的所有希望。

High fees from ordinals have killed all hope of scaling Bitcoin non custodially.

人们根本不可能在经济可行的情况下开启通道，或在必要时强制执行链上挂起支付。

There is no chance at all that people will be able to cost effectively open channels or enforce hung payments on chain when necessary.

全完了。

It's all over.

收拾东西吧，伙计们。

Pack it all up, guys.

现在该开始货比三家，决定是Coinbase还是Cash App更适合我们所有的比特币需求了——毕竟在高手续费环境下我们已经负担不起直接链上操作了。

Time to start shopping around and deciding whether Coinbase or Cash App is a better platform for all our Bitcoin needs now that we can't afford to do it directly on chain in a high fee environment.

曾经的美好时光。

It was fun while it lasted.

我们至少还拥有闪电艺术网站上那些像素化的低俗图片，以及那个没人敢发给'被政府宣称全是坏人'国家民众的闪电火炬梗。

We'll always have the pixelated dick pics on the Lightning Art site, the Lightning Torch meme where everyone was scared to send it to people in countries the state told us is full of nothing but bad people.

我们仍将保留托管账户间闪电转账的功能。

We'll still have the zapping sats from custodial account to custodial account.

我们正步入围墙花园的时代。

Into the era of walled gardens we go.

如果你在任何层面上把这些话当真了，去照照镜子然后狠狠扇自己一巴掌。

If you took any of that seriously, on any level, go look at yourself in the mirror and then give yourself a good hard slap in the face.

驱散这些混淆视听的迷雾。

Clearing the gaslighting fumes.

最初的闪电网络白皮书在结论部分明确指出，为了让70亿人每年能开通两个通道，比特币需要133兆字节的区块。

The original Lightning Network white paper specifically defined in the conclusion to the paper that for 7,000,000,000 people to be able to open two channels per year, Bitcoin would require 133 megabyte blocks.

白皮书专门有一个名为'风险'的第九章节，详细列出了人们认为高费用会导致闪电网络失败的所有主要问题。

There is an entire section of the white paper called Risks section nine, that spells out all of the major problems people think means lightning is doomed because of high fees.

论文的第一部分讨论了时间锁定窗口，即所谓的'不当时间锁定'。

The first section of the paper discusses time lock windows, quote improper time locks.

这本质上就是费率与确认时间之间的动态关系，最近已成为重大关切问题。

This is essentially the dynamic of fee rates versus confirmation time that has become a large concern lately.

当你在网络上路由支付时，你需要基于哈希锁原像定义成功路径，并基于退款时间锁定窗口定义回撤路径。

When you route a payment over the network, you define a success path based on a hash lock pre image and a clawback path based on the refund time lock window.

如果费率上涨，这个时间锁定窗口需要延长，以确保原像支出能在退款交易生效前完成确认。

If fees get higher, that time lock window needs to be longer to guarantee that a pre image spend doesn't fail to confirm before a refund transaction becomes spendable.

换句话说，如果你必须在链上确认成功支付，退款路径的时间锁定必须足够长，让你能在对方通过退款路径申领资金前确认成功支付路径。

In other words, if you have to confirm a successful payment on chain, the time lock on the refund path has to be long enough that you can confirm the successful payment path before your channel counterparty can claim the funds through the refund path.

这个时间锁定窗口需要多长会随着费率升高而增加，因为预先签署的通道关闭交易的费用可能过低，无法按签署时的预期速度确认。

How long that time lock window has to be increases the higher fee rates get, because the transaction fee decided ahead of time for pre signed channel closure transactions can be too low to confirm as fast as you expected when you signed them.

很多人对这种动态感到恐慌，表现得像是突然发现了什么新大陆，认为这预示着闪电网络的末日。

Many people are freaking out and losing their shit over this dynamic as if it is some new realization and it spells the doom of the Lightning Network.

这实际上在原版白皮书阐述首个闪电协议版本时就被列为风险之一。

This was literally described as a risk in the original white paper specifying the first version of the lightning protocol.

它甚至从经济学角度明确描述了机会成本的权衡。

It explicitly even described the opportunity cost trade off from an economic point of view.

引述：'在较长时间锁定和资金时间价值之间存在权衡'。

Quote There is a trade off between longer time locks and the time value of money.

下一节名为'强制过期垃圾邮件'。

The next section is called Forced Expiration Spam.

它描述了洪水掠夺攻击的基本概念。

It describes the general concept of the flood and loot attack.

攻击者通过同时开通大量通道并集中上链关闭，专门利用高手续费率环境下退款交易可能对成功路径交易发起双花攻击的特性，当某些操作必须通过链上强制执行时。

An adversary opening a large number of channels and then closing them all at once on chain, specifically to take advantage of the fact that if fee rates got too high, refund transactions could have a chance at double spending success path transactions if something needed to be enforced on chain.

如果你同时开通大量通道且存在中途支付时突然全部关闭，并将手续费推高到足够程度，那么每个需要在链上确认成功支付的通道对手方都可能陷入双花竞赛——当手续费高到让时间锁交易在含原像的成功交易确认前就生效时。

If you have a bunch of channels open with payments in mid flight and you lose them all at once and drive fees up high enough, then every channel counterparty who has to confirm a successful payment on chain could find themselves in a double spend race if the fees are driven up high enough to let the time lock transaction become valid before the successful one with the pre image is confirmed.

只要开通足够多的通道并将手续费推得足够高，你就能从中获利。

If you have enough channels open and drive fees up high enough, you can profit from this.

白皮书确实将此列为架构层面的隐患。

It was literally described in the white paper as an architectural concern.

根据不同版本的白皮书记载，这类攻击在2015和2016年就有描述。

Depending on which version of the paper you count, this class of attack was described in 2015 and 2016.

直到2020年才被正式建模并引入这个领域的新闻周期。

It wasn't formally modeled and introduced into the news cycle of this space until 2020.

白皮书描述了数据丢失的情况，即丢失预签名的关闭交易和旧状态的惩罚密钥，这将使恶意通道方在知晓该情况时盗取你的资金。

The white paper described data loss, the situation of losing the pre signed closure transactions and penalty keys for old states that would allow a malicious channel party to steal your funds if they were aware of this.

它提出了无法广播惩罚交易的问题，并提出瞭望塔作为第三方解决方案——通过付费代用户监控区块链并提交这些交易。

It brought up the situation of being incapable of broadcasting a penalty transaction and the potential for watch towers to solve this as a third party being paid to watch the blockchain and submit those transactions on your behalf.

白皮书确实将矿工审查通道惩罚交易列为风险，并建议通过矿工匿名化和隐含的去中心化来缓解该风险。

It literally described miners censoring channel penalty transactions as a risk and suggested miner anonymity and implicitly decentralization as the mitigation for that risk.

但这些都成了新知识。

But this is all new information.

闪电网络注定失败，因为没人预见到这些问题。

The Lightning Network is doomed to failure because no one saw any of these problems coming.

区块链啊，你们这些白痴。

The Blockchain, you idiots.

好吧，看来我们得承认历史背景已湮灭。

Well, I guess we can just admit historical context is lost.

理性已荡然无存。

Reason is lost.

逻辑与理性已荡然无存。

Logic and rationality is lost.

我们正身处一个假装历史警告不存在、无人指出必将显现的明显问题、完全无人预想过事态发展的未知领域。

We are in a reality where we are going to pretend like historical warnings don't exist, no one ever pointed out obvious problems destined to manifest in the future, and this is all just totally uncharted territory where no one ever thought about how things would play out.

第9.6节的标题是什么？

What is the title of section 9.6?

哦，是无法进行必要的软分叉。

Oh, inability to make necessary soft forks.

原始白皮书明确指出了协调软分叉能力的缺失是闪电网络成功的风险所在。

The original white paper explicitly spelled out the inability to coordinate soft forks as a risk to the success of the lightning network.

你感到惊讶吗？

Are you surprised?

你之前从未读过这些内容吗？

Have you never read any of this before?

就我个人而言，我有种似曾相识的感觉。

Personally, I'm getting deja vu.

我记得多年前，大批比特币支持者曾高呼区块链本身已达到扩容极限，除非彻底改变系统的去中心化权衡机制，否则必将失败。

I remember years and years ago a large contingent of Bitcoiners screaming that the blockchain itself was hitting scaling limits, that it would fail unless we fundamentally altered the entire nature of the decentralization trade offs of the system.

如果人们无法直接提交所有链上交易并获得成本有效的确认，那么区块链从根本上就毫无用处。

Blockchains were fundamentally useless if people couldn't directly submit all of their transactions on chain and have them cost effectively confirmed.

当人们开始争论规模化后区块链的成本效益时——这直接引发了区块大小战争——比特币生态系统的整个根基都受到了动摇。

The entire foundation of the Bitcoin ecosystem was rocked to its core when people started arguing over the cost effectiveness of the blockchain at scale that was literally the entire cause of the block size war.

这场动荡的核心是什么？

What was at the core of this disruption?

是人们对区块链在比特币生态演变过程中应扮演角色的预期。

People's expectations of what role the blockchain would play in the puzzle of Bitcoin's evolving ecosystem.

要么人人都能用成本低廉的手续费在链上买咖啡，要么比特币就是个彻头彻尾的失败品。

Everyone is going to buy their coffee on chain at a cost effective fee rate or Bitcoin is a total failure.

持那种心态的人完全误判了整个形势。

Everyone with that mentality just completely misjudged the entire situation.

他们试图方枘圆凿——强行把不匹配的东西凑在一起。

They were trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.

闪电网络面临完全相同的问题。

It's the exact same thing with Lightning.

方枘圆凿，格格不入。

Square peg round hole.

区块链被严重误判了。

The Blockchain was sorely misjudged.

它本只是用来处理通道开关的场所，而非让你买咖啡的地方。

It was really just a place to put channel openings and closings, not a place to buy your coffee.

不过人们不太可能误判闪电网络，那确实是处理咖啡支付的最佳场所。

There's no real chance that people misjudged Lightning though, that is surely the place to put your coffee payments.

这次绝不可能有人再误判了。

No one could possibly have misjudged that this time.

在正确语境下这么说是不是显得很荒谬？

See how silly that sounds when you put it like that in the proper context?

闪电网络在链上强制执行支付方面存在问题。

Lightning has issues with enforcing payments on chain.

如果支付金额低于链上提交交易的手续费，这就成问题了。

If the value of the payment is less than the fee to submit the transaction on the chain, this is a problem.

试图在链上强制执行支付毫无经济意义。

It makes no economic sense to try to enforce it on chain.

这是个众所周知的难题。

This was a very well known problem.

本质上这与链上直接处理小额支付是同一个问题，只不过在乐观情况下，由于人们在链外配合，一切才能正常运作。

It's essentially the exact same problem of low value payments happening directly on chain, except in the optimistic case things just work because people cooperate off chain.

但当他们不合作时，就会出现问题。

But when they don't cooperate, there are problems.

这个问题广为人知，以至于多年前曾有过大量关于其解决方案的讨论，涉及不同权衡取舍：分组支付。

This problem was so well known that there was actually a good deal of debate years ago about a solution to it with different trade offs: packetized payments.

如果HTLC金额太小无法在链上实现无信任执行，你可以以信任方式按SAT逐流支付或较大SAT块支付，并在某个节点试图窃取SAT时停止流转并选择其他路径。

If an HTLC is too small to be able to enforce trustlessly on chain, you can stream a payment SAT by SAT or larger chunks of SATs in a trusted manner and stop streaming and pick another route if someone in a hop decides they're going to steal a SAT from you.

其核心理念是：虽然这是一种信任型支付路由机制，但攻击者最多只能窃取你支付金额的零星SAT。

The idea is that while it is a trusted payment routing mechanism, you can only lose a few SATs to an attacker who steals a tiny piece of your payment.

如果在支付路由过程中有人行窃，你只需永远不再通过那些节点路由即可。

And if someone steals from you while routing a payment, you just never route through those nodes again.

上述引用来自2019年，但这个构想其实更早就被讨论过。

The citation above is from 2019, but this idea was discussed earlier than that.

闪电网络存在一个问题，同时也有一个多数读者可能从未听闻的解决方案。

Lightning has a problem and also a solution to that problem most people reading probably never heard about.

人们认为天塌地陷的所有这些问题，其实自闪电网络诞生之初就被充分理解了。

All of these issues people seem to think means the sky is falling are issues well understood from the very beginning of lightning.

这引出一个问题：我们是否又错了？

This begs a question, were we wrong again?

不是说闪电网络注定是条死胡同，而是说它可能不会像我们最初设想的那样被长期使用——就像区块链本身的发展轨迹。

Not wrong in the sense that Lightning is a doomed dead end, but wrong in the sense that Lightning is not going to be used long term in the way that we thought it was initially, just like the blockchain itself.

我们已经看到托管应用主导闪电网络的现状，人们正在专门开发部署在闪电网络之上的解决方案。

We already see Lightning dominated by custodial applications, and people are working on deploying things specifically designed to sit on top of Lightning.

诸如Chalmun电子现金铸币厂、LNbits这类'吉姆大叔'式托管方案，让用户在他人的闪电网络节点上拥有托管账户。

Chalmun eCash Mints, Uncle Jim setups like LNbits where people are given a custodial account on someone's Lightning node.

甚至还有像Arc这样的提案正在Liquid网络上进行概念验证阶段开发，它能与闪电支付实现原子化交互。

We even have proposals like Arc being built out in the proof of concept phase on Liquid, which can interact atomically with Lightning payments.

如果闪电网络最终并非消费者直接用于在线支付的杀手级协议呢？

What if Lightning isn't going to be the killer protocol that consumers directly interact with in order to make their payments online?

如果就像区块链本身一样，它最终只是成为结算层的一部分，其他事物都构建在其之上呢？

What if, just like the Blockchain itself, it simply winds up being a piece of a settlement layer that other things are built on top of?

那会是世界末日吗？

Would that be the end of the world?

那会是闪电网络的失败吗？

Would that be a failure of lightning?

我认为绝对不是。

I would argue, absolutely not.

从闪电网络开发之初，其扩展限制就非常明确。

From the very beginning of development on lightning, it was incredibly clear what its scaling limitation would be.

白皮书明确提出了未来无法获得所需软分叉支持作为闪电网络潜在可扩展性的限制。

The white paper literally brings up the issue of not getting support for soft forks needed in the future as a limitation of Lightning's potential scalability.

闪电网络目前正明确证明，它可以作为不同托管方之间的交互层，并且在这方面运行流畅高效。

Lightning is proving definitively right now that it can function as a layer for interactivity between different custodians and that it works smoothly and very effectively for that.

闪电网络完全有理由可以作为其他具有优于显式托管信任模型的第二层网络的连接层。

There is no reason at all lightning cannot function as a similar connectivity layer for other layer twos that have superior trust models than an explicit custodian.

如果通道对个人日常消费活动来说成本效益不高，并不意味着它们对除了闪电网络外还运行新协议以相互连接的LSPs（流动性服务提供商）来说也不具成本效益，这使得他们的用户可以相互交互。

If channels are not something individuals can cost effectively have for their daily spending activity, that doesn't mean they are not cost effective for LSPs who run new protocols in addition to Lightning to link between each other, allowing their users to interact with each other.

Arcs、状态链以及未来几年人们开发的各种新想法。

Arcs, state chains, and whatever new ideas people develop over the coming years.

它可以成为其他系统的翻译层，扩展终端用户在这些系统上的接入和交易能力，就像我们最终意识到区块链必须成为的那样。

It can be a translator layer for other systems that scale the end user's ability to onboard and transact on those layers, exactly like we wound up realizing the Blockchain would have to be.

这没有任何问题。

And there is nothing wrong with that.

本节目由Coldcard硬件钱包制造商CoinKite赞助播出。

This episode is brought to you by CoinKite, the makers of the Coldcard hardware wallet.

在我使用过的各种硬件钱包、移动钱包和桌面钱包的所有设置中，包括我尝试过的所有产品。

Of all the setups that I've done with my various hardware wallets and mobile wallets and desktop wallets, everything that I I play around with.

我还没发现哪个方案能像我在Nunchuck上设置的多重签名那样简洁友好，结合Tap Signer和Cold Card，带来如此出色的用户体验。

I have not found one that is as clean and as user friendly, that like just has the great user experience as the combination that I've done with my multisig on Nunchuck, with my tap signer and my cold card.

我把Cold Card作为备用方案，万一丢失手机和Tap Signer时使用，而Tap Signer则配合手机密钥用于移动端签名。

I use my cold card as essentially the backup if I ever lose my phone my phone and my tap signer, and then my tap signer as my on the go signing with the key on my phone.

虽然多重签名并不适合所有人，但我钟爱这个钱包配置——它让我既能轻松完成日常交易，又拥有完善的备份机制，即使手机被盗或丢失密钥也不会有风险。

Now, multisig specifically isn't for everybody, but I love the wallet and the setup because it gives me the best of, I can easily go out and make some transactions if I need to, I have very good backups, and I'm not at risk if somebody like steals my phone or if I lose one of the keys.

话说回来，要将密钥与移动设备完全隔离，最安全的方式就是直接让Cold Card与钱包配合使用。

That said, one of the safest ways you can actually just separate your keys entirely from the mobile device is to just use the cold card directly with the wallet.

通过NFC功能，你只需将设备轻触手机即可完成交易，密钥永远不会接触移动设备。

And you can use it with NFC, so you can just tap the device to your phone if you ever wanna send a transaction, and your keys will never touch the mobile device.

如果你想将比特币从交易所提现，摆脱他人欠条，真正掌握资产所有权，让密钥安全存放在冷存储中，现在购买Mark 4型号Cold Card可享9折优惠，使用我的代码Bitcoin Audible。

For those of you who want to finally get your Bitcoin off of an exchange out of IOUs from other people, and you want to know that you hold it, and you and know that it is in your cold storage and your keys are safe, you can get a cold card, the Mark four, for 9% off with my code Bitcoin Audible.

更重要的是，如果你想帮助亲友获得资产自主权，让他们拥有自己的冷存储设备，这将是一份绝佳的圣诞礼物。

And then even more importantly, if you want to finally give one of your friends or family members their sovereignty that you want them to hold their own cold storage, it is a wonderful Christmas present and gift that you can give them.

别忘了使用折扣码Bitcoin Audible。

Just don't forget the discount with code Bitcoin Audible.

链接和详情都在节目说明里。

The link and details are right in the show notes.

好的。

Alright.

Shinobi这篇精彩文章真是——

So I'm really great article from Shinobi.

我们最近读了很多Shinobi的作品。

We've been reading a lot of stuff by Shinobi.

我基本上把他近期发表的文章都整理成了一个小档案库。

I've basically got like a little archive of the stuff that he's been publishing recently.

但特别喜欢这篇，因为说实话，关于闪电网络持续不断的FUD或讨论，仿佛这些都是新话题，这种现象本身就很有意思。

But this one I love because just because, you know, the it's it's pretty incredible actually that the consistent stream of, I guess, FUD or just conversation about lightning is as if any of this is new.

像是像，但几乎完全不沾边。

Like like, almost none of it.

事实上，在闪电网络架构如何确保通道内有效状态优先于撤销状态这一问题上，最接近新发现（或者说漏洞/攻击方式）的是替换循环攻击——我们在节目中已经深入讨论过这个话题。

In fact, the closest thing to a new development as as to a vulnerability or an exploit in how the lightning architecture secures the the valid state over a revoked state in the channel is the replacement replacement cycling attack, which we talked about extensively on this show.

我记得那其实是另一篇Shinobi的文章，我们读过并讨论过。

And I think that was actually I think that was another Shinobi article actually that we read and then discussed.

但这么多被反复提及的问题，仿佛它们是新发现，或是对闪电网络的质疑，可笑的是这些问题不仅早被详细讨论过多年，而且几乎全都在闪电网络白皮书——那份宣告性文件里写得明明白白。

But so many of these other issues that are constantly brought up as if they're new or as if this is an argument against lightning, it's it's funny that it's like it's not even something that we haven't that hasn't been discussed at length in so many conversations and for so many years, but that almost all of it was literally detailed right in the white paper, the announcement paper for the Lightning Network.

就在扩容的语境下，这其实是我在节目里反复强调的观点。

And just in the context of scaling, you know, this is something that I've talked about quite a bit on the show.

每次提起这个话题，人们总是忽视趋势，机械地把现状投射到未来，却意识不到这是个持续迭代的过程——没有所谓的终点线，也没有截止日期。

Like, time we bring this topic up, it I I think people get so lost in ignoring the trend and just linearly applying whatever it is that we have today out into the future and failing to recognize how iterative this entire process is and that there's not a comp there's not an end date.

就像所有人都在寻找独角兽，寻找根本不存在的东西。

Like, everybody is looking for something for a unicorn, for something that literally doesn't exist.

他们幻想存在一个现成的、能立即全球推广的万能支付系统：既能抗审查，又能让全世界用来买咖啡和贴纸，每秒处理数亿笔交易，永远无需改进，毫无妥协，永不崩溃。

That there's gonna be a singular uniform monetary payments, censorship resistant, everything, total global scaling to everybody buying coffee and stickers with it system that should be ready immediately at this very moment, should scale to the entire globe, hundreds of thousands, hundreds of millions of transactions per second, and should require absolutely no change or continued development, and it should never have any trade offs or any and it should never break.

这简直荒谬绝伦。

Like, that's that's an absolute absurdity.

那些山寨币和比特币分叉币声称解决了问题，实则完全回避了根本矛盾——基础的去中心化原则，以及系统可验证性这个核心问题：你能审计它吗？

And the notion that all of these altcoins or forks of Bitcoins solved this by just completely ignoring the underlying issue, the fundamental decentralization, and the the ability to verify the entire system just on its face just doing the blanket, can you audit it?

普通人能否在不信任第三方的情况下确认当前状态是有效状态？

Can the the average person know that the current state is the valid state without trusting somebody else?

它们直接把整个原则抛诸脑后，宣称要在区块链上搞TB级别的区块。

They just threw the whole thing out the window and then just said we're gonna have, you know, terabyte blocks on the blockchain.

这根本不是解决问题。

It wasn't a solution to the issue.

这只是彻底放弃了原则。

It was just abandoning it.

它完全忽视了这一点，未能认识到区块链的最高价值用例是什么，以及它如何实现了其他任何技术都无法比拟的独特功能。

It was just ignoring it completely and failing to recognize what val like, what the what the highest value use case of the blockchain was and how it achieved the one thing that it that it can achieve that nothing else can compare to.

但回到我们关于闪电网络的多次讨论——大约两三年前我就在节目中认真探讨过这个话题——我当时预测闪电网络的未来定位是：人们会将比特币视为结算层，而随着技术演进，我认为闪电网络将成为支付层，在协议栈向第二、第三层过渡期间，成为我们这个全球技术栈中的关键组成部分。

But going back to the many, many discussions that we've had about Lightning and how I've talked about it probably two, three years ago, I really kinda start started talking about this in earnest on the show, is that where I thought lightning was going to be in the future is and I I believe I've made this analogy, I don't know, ten, twenty times, that I think it will be that people think of Bitcoin as the settlement layer, and I actually think that as this progresses, Lightning is the payments layer during the transition to the second and third layers of this protocol stack, of of the global stack that we have here.

随着时间推移，我认为比特币将越来越被视为终审法庭——虽然仍可称之为结算层，但更准确的理解应该是：它是一个去中心化、完全可验证的终极仲裁系统，用于判定所有权归属。

And Bitcoin will be seen the the further we get into this future, I believe Bitcoin will be seen as the court is the final you could still arguably call it a settlement layer, but I think it will be largely better understood as a as a sort of court system, as a decentralized, completely verifiable enforcement of final the final arbiter of who owns what.

从技术角度这或许仍可称为结算层，但人们会更少将其与支付关联，而更多视为解决冲突的机制——当信任崩塌时，由它来裁定合法所有者。

So maybe that's I mean, technically, that's still a settlement settlement layer, but I think it will be thought of less about payments and more about conflict is who is the rightful owner when things break down, when trust breaks down.

这就是你最终需要回归比特币链上结算的时刻。

That is when you fall back to Bitcoin on chain.

我认为闪电网络终将成为资本配置和流动性网络的主导结算系统，它能跨越所有国界、地区和司法管辖区。

I think Lightning will end up being the dominant settlement network when it comes to capital allocation and liquidity networks that bridge all borders and countries and jurisdictions, etcetera.

特别是Shinobi提出的观点：它连接着所有第三层协议。

And specifically, what Shinobi brings up is bridging between all the layer threes.

闪电网络就像是某种互联网。

That Lightning is the the the sort of Internet.

它是连接所有附加第三层协议的网状纽带，这也是我们多次在节目中讨论这个话题的原因。

It's the it's the web connection between all of these additional layer threes, which is where we find this is why we've talked about this a bunch on the show.

联邦通道、生态通道、弧形通道、通道池等等这些概念。

Fedament, Ecachments, Arc, channel pools, and all these things.

就像我曾在个人使用经历中举例说明的：闪电网络支付相比比特币支付给我的个人扩展乘数效应是什么。

Like, that was one of the things that I even used as an example in my own, history or my own use of Lightning is what was my individual scaling multiplier for Lightning payments versus Bitcoin.

有趣的是，实际上我并没有大幅减少链上比特币支付或交易的数量。

And it was funny because what happened is that I didn't actually change drastically the amount of Bitcoin on chain payments that I made or on chain transactions that I made.

可能减少了约一半，但绝没有降到原先的十分之一或百分之一。

I probably dropped it from, like, I may have cut it in half, but I didn't like one tenth or one one hundredth the amount of Bitcoin transactions I made.

相反，通过将闪电网络作为主要支付手段，我实现了一般交易收发量50倍的增长。

Instead, what I was able to do was 50 x the amount of general transactions that I made or received by using lightning as my predominant means to make payments, make and receive payments.

这包括从托管到非托管的各种渠道，比如移动钱包与我自己的节点，在我的大使馆钱包里，现在我有一堆相互连接的闪电网络实例。

And that includes from a variety of different avenues from custodial to non custodial and, you know, mobile wallet versus my own node, in my embassy wallet, you know, like I have a bunch of different lightning instances now that are kind of interconnected.

老实说，我已经很久没计算过这个了。

And that was honestly I haven't done the math on it in a while.

现在可能规模更大了。

It might be a lot bigger now.

Noster和我发送或接收的zap数量，老兄，我每天大概有20到30次来回，至于提现，伙计，我也不清楚。

Noster and the the amount of zaps that I send and or receive, dude, I might be in the 20 to 30 per day back and forth, and then the withdrawals, man, I don't know.

我很好奇现在的乘数是多少，因为根据我粗略计算，大约是40到50倍——闪电网络结算的支付次数与需要比特币链上支付的频率之比。

I I I'm curious what my multiplier is now because it was about 40 to 50 x, if I'm not mistaken with the back of napkin math that I did, for the number of payments that get settled over Lightning versus how often I need a Bitcoin on chain payment.

但要认识到，我们还需要一个数量级的提升。

But recognizing that, you we still need an order of magnitude.

这样的规模还不足以扩展到全球范围。

Like, that is not something that's scalable to the globe.

就像我说的，这甚至没有产生巨大影响——虽然链上支付量减半仍是大事，但这远不足以支撑，比如让十亿人加入网络。

And it's like I said, it it didn't even make a huge I mean, granted, you know, half the amount of on chain payments is still a big deal, but that's not an enormous that's not a, you know, add a billion people to the network.

最多是如果每个人都像我这样使用，规模可能翻倍。

That's a maybe everybody does what I do and you can double.

但这与全球每个人都能非托管主权使用比特币系统的愿景相去甚远。

But that is an absolute far cry from everybody on the planet having, you know, non custodial sovereign use of the Bitcoin system.

我最初几次从这个角度提出或讨论这个想法时，其实较少涉及Fediment或eCash。

And my thinking probably the first couple of times I brought this up or started discussing this idea from that perspective was less about Fediment or eCash.

当时这些概念甚至还没流行起来，也没被广泛讨论。

I mean, don't even think that was really popular or like highly discussed at the time.

更多是关于通道池和ARC、超时树这类潜在方案——后者是最近的提案，但仍需CTV支持，有趣的是在闪电网络论文背景下，Shinobi指出未来软分叉对闪电网络作为企业间结算支付系统的长期可扩展性仍然必要。

It was far more about channel pools and potential things like ARC and time out trees, which was another very recent proposal, but which still requires CTV, which is funny because CTV is one of those things that in the context of the Lightning paper and what Shinobi brought up is that future soft forks are still necessary for the the long term scalability of Lightning as the interconnected settlement and, you know, payment systems between businesses and Uncle Jim's and all of this stuff.

事实上他还写了另一篇文章。

And in fact, he has another article.

Shinobi在《比特币杂志》上刚发表了一篇新文章，探讨'吉姆叔叔们都去哪儿了'的问题，我们节目可能也会讨论这个话题，因为我认为这确实是个非常重大的问题，连我自己都曾在此失职或未尽所能。

Shinobi has another article that just dropped on, Bitcoin Magazine about where are all the uncle Jim's, which we will probably also cover on this show, because I think this is actually a really really big issue that even I have I have failed on or I have not done enough of what I could do.

我们讨论这期节目时我会发起行动号召，因为我认为这是至关重要的机制之一。我们仍倾向于低估或未能意识到，建立自有系统所需的技术能力蕴含着多大价值，而总是选择最正规的企业（或非企业）解决方案，就近依赖它们。

And I'll have a call to action in that episode when we discuss this because I think this is one of the really important mechanisms We still tend to diminish or fail to realize how much value there is in the kind of technical prowess of setting up our own systems and just kind of go to the most legitimate corporate or not corporate, but like company business solution that is nearest to us so that and just kind of lean on them.

就像说'哦，我喜欢这家公司'。

It's like, oh, well, I like this business.

比如我经常推荐Swan。

It's like, you know, I I I push Swan a lot.

我也常推River和Strike，因为这些公司确实很出色。

I push River and Strike, like, because these are great companies that do a lot of things.

但重要的是，真正理解使用托管机构或交易所利弊的人，应该为家人和亲密社交圈提供信任保障。

But I think it's important for the people who really understand the trade offs of using a custodian or a an exchange like that to then actually be leveraged for their family and close social circles for trust.

这样当出现问题时，你不必被动应对帮他们解决，而是能主动承担这个责任，成为他们的'吉姆叔叔'，为亲友提供服务。

So that rather than in the case of those situations where things go wrong or things don't line up, that rather than reacting and trying to help those people sort those issues out, you can actually be the one that takes on that burden and be the uncle Jim for them and be the provider of the service for those people, those family and friends.

正如我们在'没有银行家的银行'那期讨论的：要构建我们理想中拥有数十亿用户、最大限度降低信任需求、只在必要时建立最小范围信任的协议栈，就必须认真考虑并积极实施'吉姆叔叔'模式。

Because that's one of the things we talked about in the banks banks without bankers episode and how to envision a potential future with the billions of users that we want in this protocol stack with the the highest amount of trust mitigation and the most local degrees of trust where trust is necessary is that we need to think very seriously and actually be proactive about implementing the Uncle Jim model.

我们这些懂得搭建系统、运行服务器的人，应该私下为社交圈提供这种服务。

And those of us who do know how to set these things up and, you know, run a web server and these things, need to just privately offer this to the people in our social circles.

比特币的美妙之处就在于：你能帮助他人运行节点，成为自己小圈子里的微型银行，让他们信任你而非那些更容易成为攻击目标的托管机构——那些拥有营销预算、邮件列表和身份验证系统的大公司只会招来更多风险。

That is the beauty of Bitcoin, is the ability to offer a to to help other people run this instance, to be your own tiny little bank for your tiny your closest social circle, and they can trust you rather than trust some custodian that is gonna be a much bigger honeypot and at much more much greater risk because they're using, you know, big large businesses with, you know, marketing budgets and, you know, email lists and, you know, identity verification, all this stuff that just makes them more of a target.

我们目睹过所有这类公司的结局：无论它们多么安全诚信、如何努力防护，庞大的攻击面总是防不胜防。

And inevitably, we see with all of these companies, no matter how secure and how honest and how much they try to protect, there's just no way to it's too big of an attack surface from too many different areas.

尤其在美国，巨大的监管负担让这些公司举步维艰——应对监管环境简直像场噩梦。

And especially because of the huge regulatory burden on so many of these companies, especially in The US, like, just seems like The U US regulatory system, like navigating the regulatory environment just seems like an absolute nightmare.

正因如此，它们暴露在多重风险中，你必须明白使用它们必然存在风险。

And because of that, they just they're exposed in so many different ways that you just have to understand and know that there is a risk of this no matter what.

当你使用需要执照的KYC服务或大公司时，这种风险就客观存在。

When you're using a KYC service or a large company that needs licenses, you know, all this stuff, it that that risk is simply there.

这是无法逃避的事实。

That's there's no escaping it.

我认为现阶段闪电网络最强大的地方在于它能连接越来越小的服务提供商——这些机构可以不受地域限制，也可以是非公开实体。就像你帮忙运营支付服务、应用程序，为它们连接应用那样，EllenBits就是个很好的例子。但我感觉这个领域的研究还远远不够。

And I think the really powerful thing about Lightning at this stage is its ability to bridge smaller and smaller service providers that can either be jurisdiction free or can be non public entities, just like you helping to run a payment service, an app, connecting apps for them, EllenBits being a great example, and I feel like there hasn't been enough work in that area.

我们会在另一期节目里更深入地讨论这个话题，现在只是因为它正好浮现在脑海中。

And we'll talk about this more in-depth on another episode, but just just because it's top of mind right now.

我觉得我们就像把唾手可得的果实留在枝头——在我们自己的社交圈里，明明有很多方法可以缓解这些问题。

I think we're leaving low hanging fruit for how we can mitigate a lot of these problems in our own social circles on the table, or on the vine, I guess, is the analogy.

但回到这篇文章的核心观点，它认为闪电网络注定失败，因为它存在时间锁、MIM池问题，以及在闪电通道中执行冲突时需要权衡手续费等因素。

But going back to just kind of the heart of this article specifically, it's just the idea that lightning is doomed because it has time and MIM pool and, you know, fee related trade offs for the enforcement of conflict in lightning channels.

这正是当初讨论和创建闪电网络时的核心议题。

When this was this this was the discussion and the creation of the Lightning Network.

这完全就是我们当初设计闪电网络安全模型时的整体思路。

This this was the entirety of how we thought about the Lightning Network security model.

我不知道人们是忘记了，还是觉得这种无脑的推特帖子正好可以用来——不管出于什么原因——装腔作势。

Like, I don't know if people just forgot or if it's just like really convenient for, you know, some mindless Twitter post to you beat your chest about for whatever reason.

也许他们只是觉得假装不知道很有趣，或者集体患了健忘症？又或者他们真的是第一次听说，因为对闪电网络一无所知，所以看到一条推特就以为发现了新大陆。

If it's just fun to pretend or if everybody just has amnesia that bad, Or maybe this is the first time they've heard about it because they just don't know anything about lightning, and so a tweet comes across everything.

反应就像是：'哇哦'。

It's like, oh, wow.

'闪电网络要完蛋了'。

Lightning is doomed.

'快看这个问题'。

Look at this issue.

其实这个问题2015年白皮书里就写了。

It's like, yeah, in the white paper in 2015.

让我来给你解释解释。

Let me explain it to you.

但无论是天然的信息不对称还是煤气灯效应，看着人们讨论这些早已众所周知、存在明确权衡取舍的事情然后宣称胜利，尤其是当他们将其视为竞赛时——仅仅因为在比特币或闪电网络等领域发现了某种权衡，就默认他们的山寨币现在胜出或不受此影响——这某种程度上确实很可笑。要知道几乎所有问题本质上都是区块链或基于其构建的支付通道网络的固有局限性。

But whether it's just a natural information asymmetry or gaslighting, it is just kind of funny in a way to just watch people talk about all of these things that have been well known for, like, these explicit trade offs and then claiming victory, especially especially when they treat it as like a competition and that because they found some sort of trade off when it comes to Bitcoin or Lightning or something is that this means by default that their shitcoin now is is winning or or that their shitcoin is not vulnerable to this when almost every issue is largely the cons the the very nature of it is a limitation of blockchain or of a payment channel sort of network on top of it.

这些事物的运作方式就是如此。

Just the way these things work.

比如我前几天看到有人对闪电网络之类的东西发表观点，结果那人是个卡尔达诺支持者——但问题是权益证明机制本身，你还没开始就已经被俘获了。

Like I I saw somebody the other day claiming something about Lightning or whatnot, and then they were they're like a Cardano supporter, and it's like, the thing is proof of stake, like, you're captured before you even get started.

不知道，纠结这些纯粹是浪费时间，但其中确实存在某种既滑稽又令人疲惫的特质。

I don't know, it's a waste of time to even harp on all of that, but it's there there's something about it that's a little bit comical and then just also partially exhausting.

不过回到联邦模型、ARC和闪电通道以及超时树的话题，这些也很有意思。

But back to talking about the kind of fediment model and the arc and lightning channels and and time out trees and I I'm that's interesting too.

我其实没太跟进ARC的具体实施细节，比如它正在哪里开发。

I haven't really kept up with where arc's actual implementation details are, like like where it's being built.

而Shinobi在这篇文章中特别提到，测试版或概念验证版正在Liquid上构建，这非常有趣。

And Shinobi specifically mentions in this piece that a test version or or proof of concept version is being built on Liquid, which that's really interesting.

所以我现在更想深入了解一下。

So I'm I'm more curious to actually dig into that now.

但最近有件事彻底颠覆了我的认知——BitVM的应用范围如此之广，很可能存在极其有用的解决方案。因为有人刚刚通过BitVM协议在交易中运行了密码学证明，这本质上将实现真正的双向锚定：链下运行的软件系统能实际验证并控制链上比特币的所有权。这将彻底改变信任关系，让我们能构建这种始终可以回退到链上作为终极仲裁者的最小化信任系统。

But one of the things that has kind of blown my mind recently that I feel like there's going to be I mean, the the scope of what can be done with this is so broad that I feel like there's probably some incredibly incredibly useful solution in the space of BitVM because somebody just built or ran a a cryptographic proof through the BitVM protocol or through the BitVM system within a transaction, which would essentially enable, as as I understand it, this would essentially enable a genuine two way peg where the the software, the system that's being run off chain can actually validate or actually can be confirmed and control the ownership on chain of the actual Bitcoin, which would truly change the game when it comes to the trust relationship or the the ability to do trust minimized systems like this that can always end up falling back on chain as the ultimate arbiter, as the ultimate court as to who owns what.

闪电网络可以作为一种半信任机制运作（我说半信任是因为通道本身无需信任，而是你主动选择将比特币与通道对手方锁定特定时长）。

While Lightning can operate as a semi trusted, and I say semi trust, semi trusted in the sense that it's it's not about the fact that the channels are trusted, it's about the fact that you would want you specifically want to, because you're locking up Bitcoin for a particular period of time with your counterparty, with your channel counterparty.

它实际上是通过个体间信任关系来扩展系统——就像某种分离度，我不会随便与人建立通道，因为这根本没有好处。

What it does is actually scale the system of trust through individuals, like, sort of degrees of separation where I'm not going to open channels with just anybody because it's just not beneficial.

这不符合闪电网络最优化的运作方式。

It's not conducive to how Lightning Network operates in an optimal fashion.

对我来说，更明智的做法是选择那些我知道具有高在线率和高流动性的节点，建立少量精心布局的闪电通道。

It's better for me specifically to select nodes that I know have very high uptime and high liquidity and to do a few very well placed lightning channels.

如果我想帮助亲友，完全可以专门为他们预留流动性资金。

And then if I wanted to, if I wanted to help out with, you know, friends and family and like I could literally have liquidity that I set aside for them.

实际上我们可以这样——我可以为他们设置一个钱包，如果他们想自己持有密钥并拥有一个大通道，我可以尝试成为他们的流动性提供者，因为我经常购买比特币并存入我的闪电网络实例或BTCPay服务器。

And we could actually have a like I could set up a wallet for them where I like if I wanted them to actually hold their own keys and have one big channel, and I could help try to be their liquidity provider because I'm always, you know, buying Bitcoin and sticking it into, you know, my Lightning instance or own BTCPay server.

但这篇文章还提出了另一个观点：低于手续费阈值的交易在某种意义上都是‘可信的’。

But there's something else actually that this article brings up in the context of, like, everything below the fee threshold is quote, unquote trusted.

关于将聪打包的概念，这样在低于手续费阈值时，你可以明确拥有一个可签名的余额，可以直接与你的通道对手方进行转移。

And the idea of packetized sats so that the rather than an HTLC sub the or or below the the fee threshold, you explicitly have a a like a signable balance that could transfer over into the balance, like directly with your channel party or your your channel partner.

但有一点让我惊讶的是很少有人讨论这个问题，或许存在某种攻击机制，特别是在路由支付时可能会引发问题。

But there's something that I still I'm surprised that fewer people don't talk about this, or or and and maybe maybe there's some sort of an attack or some mechanism where, because when especially when you're routing payments, this could be some sort of an issue.

不过我现在一时想不出具体的例子。

But I can't think of one right off the top of my head.

比如类似洪水掠夺这样的出口节点攻击。

Like, with a outlet like, a flood and loot.

几乎所有的攻击都来自直接通道对手方。

Like, almost all of the attacks are with direct channel partners.

因为即使HTLC被链上几步之外的节点锁定，你担心的不是他们能否锁定——他们可以锁定该金额，甚至可能试图锁定你全部的HTLC集合。

Because even where an HTLC is, you know, locked up from someone a couple of steps down the line, your concern isn't whether or not they like, I mean, if they lock it up, they can lock that amount up or they could, you know, try to lock up your entire HTLC set.

我记得一个节点可以同时签署并持有最多400个HTLC。

Like, I think it's like still 400 HTLCs that you can use at the exact same time or a node will sign and hold at the exact same time.

所以他们可能通过大量小额交易来延迟锁定资金，实质上就是瘫痪你的闪电节点，套牢你的流动性。

So they could try to delay and lock up small amounts of coins in tons and tons of transactions and basically, you know, halt your your lightning node, trap your liquidity so to speak.

但当我们讨论能否在链上强制执行所有权时，如果攻击者与你隔着多个节点且没有直接通道，他们实际上无法影响你与直接通道对手方的关系。

But still, when we're talking about whether or not you can enforce your ownership on chain, you're not really it's that attacker, if they're like multiple steps away, if they don't have any channels directly with you, they can't do anything within your channels with your channel partners.

关键还是在于退款或支付路径能否成功执行，这取决于你是否信任你的通道对手方，或者你们之间是否存在攻击行为。

It's still whether or not the refund or the the successful path payment goes through, is whether or not you trust your channel partner or whether or not it's an attack between you and your channel partner.

这意味着纯粹在这种关系中——即流经你的HTLC所建立的信任关系——低于手续费阈值的交易在某种意义上是可信的，因为你无法在链上强制执行；但同时又是不可信的，因为他们也无法在链上盗取资金。

Which means that purely in that relationship, which is the trust of the HTLC that's being through, that's being routed through you, yes, anything that's below the fee threshold is in a sense trusted because you can't you can't enforce it on chain, but at the exact same time, it's not trusted because they can't steal it on chain.

所以再次强调，这只是相对意义上的可信。

So again, it's only trusted.

这就是我在闪电网络已死那期节目里讨论过的内容？

This is what I I've talked about this in the lightning did I call it lightning is dead episode?

我...我不记得了。

I I I don't remember.

但这是最近才发生的事。

But it's one very recently.

我会把链接放在节目备注里。

I'll I'll put the link in the show notes.

我在关于替代循环攻击的那期节目里讨论过这个问题。

But one that I talked about in the replacement cycling attack episode where we where we covered that issue.

我谈到这更像是所有支付都存在于相互保证毁灭的关系中，双方都无法窃取低于三倍手续费阈值的资金。

I talk about how it's less of a, oh, all of these payments are trusted and more of a, all of these payments exist purely in a mutually assured destruction relationship, where neither party can steal any funds below the three fee threshold.

因此，所有人都有动力让交易顺利完成，因为上链成本比完成支付更高。

Therefore, everyone is incentivized to just have this go through successfully purely because going on chain costs more than having the fee go through I mean, having the payment go through.

攻击者能做的就是让你付出链上交易成本，并耗费时间精力更换通道节点——你得关闭通道，还想惩罚对方：你为什么要这么做？

So what the attacker can do is cost you an on chain transaction and cost you time and frustration in changing your channel parties and your your lightning setup because you would have to close channels and you would want to now punish this channel party by being like like, why the hell did you do this?

你浪费了我的时间。

You just wasted my time.

我想和更可信的节点开通道，确保对方在线且不会恶意操作，所以我要强制关闭现有通道转移资金。

I wanna open up a channel with somebody who I can trust more or I believe is gonna be online and is not gonna be malicious in our arrangement, and so I'm gonna force close our channel and move somewhere else.

但如果他们试图窃取HTLC，不仅需要发布链上交易，而且退款路径要覆盖成功路径，就必须先发布一笔链上交易才能再发布另一笔。

But if they try to steal that HTLC, they have to publish an on not only publish an an on chain transaction, but the way the the refund, works, the refund path works to beat out the successful path is by issuing an on chain transaction that then allows them to issue another on chain transaction.

他们得支付双倍费用才能赎回那些币。

They're paying twice to redeem those coins to them.

他们就是在给所有人制造麻烦，支付的手续费远超过HTLC本身的价值，这才是关键。

So they're just they're causing everybody a headache, and they're paying way more in fees than the HTLC, which is the whole point.

我们讨论的金额根本达不到手续费阈值。

We're literally talking about things that are below the fee threshold.

所以他们从中得不到任何好处。

So they don't get any they don't get any gain from this.

所以我在想，当费用低于阈值时，采用纯信任模式处理通道余额是否还有意义——即只有当金额高到足以触发链上交易来强制执行所有权时，才更新通道余额。

So I wonder if it even still if it if it still makes sense to do the purely kind of, like, trusted, like, with my channel party balance that is everything below the fee, and then once it gets enough high enough to actually affect or actually allow someone to publish an on chain transaction in order to enforce ownership, then you update the channel balance.

我无法确定这是否必要，因为HTLC本身（即使是10聪的小额支付）似乎已经实现了这个功能。

I can't decide if that's if that is even necessary when the HTLC itself, even for a 10 sat payment, seems to kind of do that already.

当然，除非是因为在纯信任关系下，当支付金额低于费用阈值时，你可以忽略时间锁和HTLC，或者更容易忽略这笔支付。

Unless, of course, it's just about the fact that you can ignore the time lock and you can ignore the HTLC easier, or you can ignore the payment easier if it's below the fee threshold, if it's a purely trusted relationship with your counterparty.

所以我不确定，可能是我对这种关系缺乏具体了解。

So I don't know, maybe I just don't have enough like hard details on that relationship.

但在我看来，'低于费用阈值的信任问题'这个议题本身就很站不住脚。

But it still just seems to me that the the whole, oh, it's trusted below the fee threshold issue is just really kind of moot in my opinion.

也许我遗漏了什么论点。

I don't know, maybe there's an argument that I'm missing here.

很好奇是否有人掌握更多细节。

I'm curious if anybody has any other details.

不过无论如何，我真的很喜欢这篇文章，它还让我会心一笑。

But I, regardless, I really enjoyed this article, and, it also just made me laugh.

我记得是Michael Matliff在AudioNauts群里分享了这篇文章。

I think it was, Michael Michael Matliff, who, linked to this in the AudioNauts group.

向你致敬，伙计。

Shout out, man.

我立刻读了它，感觉特别有意思。

I immediately read it, and I was like, oh, this is fun.

我们会在节目里读这篇。

We're gonna read this one on the show.

感谢Michael，也感谢Shinobi为《比特币杂志》撰写这篇文章——显然这本杂志总有这么多精彩内容可供阅读。

So thank you to, Michael and also to Shinobi for writing this piece in Bitcoin Magazine, obviously, for, having so many great pieces to go through.

祝大家周末愉快，我们下周再见。

And I hope you all have a wonderful weekend, and I will catch you next week.

我们准备了几期精彩节目和一些访谈内容，敬请期待。

We have got a few amazing episodes lined up and also a few chats on the way, so stay tuned.

我们将深入探讨许多有趣的话题。

We are going to be digging into a lot of fun stuff.

别忘了订阅节目并分享给朋友，你们还可以在苹果播客或谷歌播客上留下评论，这是支持节目的最佳方式。

So do not forget to subscribe, share this out with all your friends, and again, amazing way that you guys can help out the show is by leaving a review on Apple or Google Podcasts on your favorite podcasting app.

这对节目推广帮助很大，我们深表感谢。

That really helps to boost the show, and it is massively appreciated.

特别感谢Fountain上的各位，以及在Fountain上剪辑的朋友。如果在Noster上发布，我会在Noster上给你们打赏，这是我发现精彩剪辑的主要途径。

And a quick shout out to a bunch of you guys on Fountain, and also anybody who clips on Fountain, I will will zap you on Noster if you post it on Noster because that's usually the best way that I find the clips.

我特别喜欢听你们认为精彩的片段，因为通常和我的关注点不同。

And I always love hearing clips that you guys thought were really good because usually it's not the same thing that I thought was good.

我很重视大家的观点，看看哪些内容真正引起共鸣或切中要害，因为我的视角往往不同。

So I really love getting y'all's perspective on on on, like, what, like, really kind of made sense or hit a point really well because mine is almost never the same.

特别感谢Vake在Fountain上通过密钥网络打赏的2500聪，编号779。

A real quick, a shout out to Vake for 2,500 sats on Fountain of with a network of keys, reads seven seventy nine.

我非常喜欢大家那些天马行空的吐槽。

I'm a big fan of guys' unhinged rants.

我都不记得自己关于密钥网络发表过什么疯狂言论了，但很高兴有人欣赏，因为这些言论经常跑题到我自己都找不到北。

I don't even remember what unhinged rant I did about a network of keys, but I am very glad that someone appreciates my unhinged rants because a lot of times they go off the rails and I don't even know where I ended up.

等我说完才发现：这到底是从哪个话题拐过来的？

And I get to the end of this thing, and I'm like, what the where did this even come from?

所以听到这些内容至少值2500聪，我很开心。

So I'm very happy to hear that it is appreciated, for at least 2,500 sats worth.

说真的，这相当给力。

I mean, that's that's pretty baller.

在我看来，这就是胜利。

In my in my opinion, that's winning.

Chris给我转了100聪。

Chris hits me up with a 100 sats.

为Fountain欢呼，我同意。

Yay to Fountain and I agree.

我是Fountain和Keet的忠实粉丝。

I am a huge fan of both Fountain and Keet.

KEET。

KEET.

这是在Durabit那期节目上。

This is on the Durabit episode.

Clarkian，在KEET网络上投了10,000聪。

Clarkian, 10,000 sats on a network of KEETs.

地狱钥匙。

Hell keys.

太棒了。

Hell yeah.

助推。

Boost.

我以为那是个评论。

I that that that was a comment.

助推。

Boost.

向Clarkian致敬。

Shout out to Clarkian.

我很感激Bitcoin Kook做了这个剪辑。

I am grateful Bitcoin Kook took a made a clip.

哦，就是结尾那句引用的那个。

Oh, that's the one with that's the quote at the end.

是啊。

Yeah.

那句话引用得真好。

That was a really good quote.

其实那天我只搜了那一条，结果就找到了那个。

I actually only searched for that one that day, but I found that one.

我超爱这个。

I love that.

Fundamentals带着5000聪的助力来了。

Fundamentals comes in with a 5,000 sats boost.

太棒了。

Hot damn.

引用：'这简直就是一期精彩的播客节目，句号。即使人们固执到不愿读论文，我也会推荐他们听这期。'

Quote, this is just a great podcast episode, period, and one I will recommend to people even if they're too stubborn to read the paper.

这个观点信息量爆炸，充分展现了Guy作为意见领袖的非凡影响力——这就是'无银行家的银行'主张。

This take is just too loaded with signal and shows what an incredible voice Guy is, and that is the guys take banks banks without bankers.

太对了。

Hell yeah.

兄弟，感谢认可。

I appreciate that, man.

Bitcoin Kook打赏了121聪，用橙色心形表情点赞游戏玩家橙丸教育，并写道：'比特币就是数字稀缺性'。

Bitcoin Kook comes in with a 121 sats, an orange heart for great for orange pilling gamers, and that is Bitcoin is digital scarcity.