阅读_905 - 自我托管的代价

要实现经济高效的自我托管，被保障资产的价值必须显著超过执行成本，比如达到三到五倍。

To be realistically cost effectively self custodied, the value being secured must be some comfortable multiple of the cost to enforce it, say three to 5X.

如果达不到这个比例，该资产实际上就无法在链上强制执行。

If it isn't, then that value cannot actually be enforced on chain.

如果有人尝试，费用会吞噬掉大部分价值。

It will be eaten by fees if someone tries.

比特币领域的精华内容现已可听。

The best in Bitcoin made Audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，这里是《比特币可听》。

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《比特币可听》。

Welcome back to Bitcoin Audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，一个比你认识的所有人都阅读了更多比特币资料的人。

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

今天我们有一篇Shinobi的文章。

We have got a piece by Shinobi today.

这篇讲的是自我托管的成本。

This one is the cost of self custody.

其实这不是我之前说过的——可能在上集或上上集提到过——要读的Shinobi关于OP_RETURN垃圾邮件大战的那篇。

This actually isn't the one I I told you I was probably in the last episode or two that I was gonna be reading one from Shinobi about the Op Return spam war drama.

那篇我之后会讲，但说实话我现在对这个话题有点厌倦了，我们稍后再回来讨论它。

And I will be getting to that one, but honestly, I'm a little tired of that topic right now, so we'll come back to it.

这个议题其实在我待办清单里搁置已久，因为它触及了二层协议本质中一个鲜少有人直接讨论的层面。

And this is one I've actually kinda had sitting on the sidelines to do for a while because it it it hits on something about the nature of layer two protocols that I I've seen very few people directly talk about.

似乎所有人要么站在Paul Storix或大区块阵营那边，认为这些方案非托管、不安全，低于手续费门槛的价值都自动可信等等；要么就坚持完全自我托管，认为这样既没问题又可扩展。

Like, everybody seems to either be one on, like, the Paul Storix or the big blocker side of these things are not custodial, they're not safe, you can't any value below the fee level is immediately trusted, blah blah blah, or it's totally self custody and there's nothing wrong with it and it scales.

这是我们实现扩展的唯一途径。

It's the only way we're gonna scale.

基本上，中间地带的微妙差异尚未被充分阐明，这点我曾与Paul Storix有过一番争论。

It it's bay basically, the the nuance of that in between area is not very well laid out, and this is something that I've had a had a argument or just a back and forth with Paul Storix at one point.

当时我极力想论证这些系统运作中存在的中间态——某种相互保证毁灭机制。

And I was trying desperately to make this case of the mutually a mutually assured destruction in between about how these systems work.

我认为Shinobi在这篇文章中做得很好，将自我托管理念及其执行要求放在更广阔的语境下进行了剖析。

And I thought Shinobi did a really good job of breaking it down in this one in the broader context of the idea of self custody and what it takes to enforce it.

所以觉得这篇文章很适合作为讨论切入点，引领我们展开对话。

So I thought this would be a good article to discuss and kinda lead into that conversation.

快速插播：为ledden.i0的比特币抵押贷款服务打个call。

Real quick, a shout out to ledden.i0 for Bitcoin backed loans.

若您不想出售比特币但急需资金，无论是应急还是投资（预期收益虽不及比特币但可能优于贷款利率），这正是您工具箱里需要的工具。

If you don't want to sell your Bitcoin, but you need it, you want to be able to use it, for an emergency or an investment that you don't expect will actually beat Bitcoin, but might actually beat an interest rate on a loan, This is the tool you need in your toolkit.

比特币抵押贷款让您获得法币而无需出售比特币。

Bitcoin backed loans let you get fiat without selling your Bitcoin.

细节很多，请阅读条款，务必选择可信的公司。

Lots of details, read the terms, make sure, you know, you're using a company that you trust.

他们提供储备金证明。

They do proof of reserves.

他们每月都会公开账本，但你自己得深入研究，因为每个人关注的点不同。

They they have open books every month, but do your own digging because everybody has their own concerns.

如果你想了解更多详情，节目说明里有链接，还能享受一点折扣。

There's a link right down in the show notes if you want to check them out and get more details, and it has a little bit of a discount.

去看看pubkey.app。

Check out pubkey.app.

就是pubky.app。

That's pubky.app.

我们刚和约翰·卡瓦略的对话，如果你想全面了解这个项目和他们正在开发的工具。

And the conversation we just had with John Carvalho, if you really kinda wanna get the big picture of what this is and what tools they are building.

这实际上是一个重新去中心化网络的愿景。

This is literally a vision to re decentralize the web.

那个链接会在节目说明里，你还能找到Git Chroma。

That link will be down in the show notes, and you'll also find Git Chroma.

他们提供红光疗法，还有防蓝光眼镜。

They do red light therapy, they do, blue light blocking glasses.

基本上，他们设计的产品都是为人类健康和光线优化。

Basically, they're designing products to make light designed for humans and health.

我现在有好几款他们的产品，一直很推崇，还给大家争取到10%折扣码：Bitcoin Audible。

I've actually got a handful of their products now, and I've been a big fan, and I got a disc 10% discount code for you guys, Bitcoin Audible.

最后是人权基金会及其奥斯陆自由论坛，我记得是2026年6月，还有他们经常被我提及的《金融自由报告》，我们节目也时常选读。

And lastly, the Human Rights Foundation and their Oslo Freedom Forum coming in, I think it's June 2026, and their, Financial Freedom Report, which you hear me mention a lot and we read on the show from time to time.

这是份极好的资源，如果你还没看过，真的应该去了解一下。

It is an incredible resource, and if you haven't checked it out, you definitely should.

好的，各位。

Alright, guys.

那么，我们直接开始深入阅读今天的文章，其中会涉及很多内容。

So, let's go ahead and dig into today's article, and we will get into a lot of the things.

我认为这篇文章有很多不同的、非常精彩的部分值得我们去细细推敲和深入探讨。

I think there's a lot of different, like, really good sections in this to kinda pull on the thread and dig a little bit more into.

既然如此，我们就直接进入文章吧，标题是《自我托管的成本》。

So with that, let's go ahead and get into the article, and it's titled The Cost of Self Custody.

T A N S T A A F L。

T A N S T A A F L.

链上交易成本是自我托管中无法回避的变量，即便是对于链下层级而言也是如此。

The cost of an on chain transaction is an inescapable variable in the cost of self custody, even for off chain layers.

作者：Shinobi。

By Shinobi.

上周我探讨了托管系统的细微差别和复杂性——那些无法被简单归类为非托管或托管的系统，以及这在我们对领域内工具进行分类时引发的问题。

Last week, I touched on the nuances and complexities of custodial systems, systems that can't be fully categorized as non custodial or custodial, and how this causes issues when it relates to us categorizing different tools in this space.

在关于比特币使用方式的分类讨论中，这不是唯一被过度简化的问题。

This is not the only issue being oversimplified in general conversation as it relates to categorizing ways of using Bitcoin.

另一个重要因素（同样包含复杂性和细微差别）是自我托管的成本。

Another major factor, with its own bag of complexity and nuances, is the cost of self custody.

我在上一篇文章中提出了被视为自我托管的两项核心要求：

I laid out these two core requirements for something to be considered self custodial in the last article.

用户对其资金拥有单边控制权或重新获取控制权的能力，且没有任何其他方能够阻止用户动用资金，或在未经用户参与的情况下剥夺其动用资金的能力。

A user has unilateral control over their funds or the ability to regain it, and no other party or parties has the ability to prevent the user from spending their funds or regaining their ability to or to spend them without the involvement of the user.

让我们再增加一个核心要求。

Let's add another core requirement.

用户必须能够以经济高效的方式掌控自己的资金，我。

A user must be able to cost effectively exert their control over their funds, I.

E，用户在实际交易或行使所有权时，相关费用不应占其可控资金的过大比例。

E, it must not cost an inordinate percentage of the funds under their control to actually transact with or enforce their ownership over them.

如果用户通过某种执行机制对某些资金拥有主张权，但实际执行该机制需耗费这些资金的95%，那么他是否真正拥有这些资金的自主保管权？

If a user has claim to some funds through some enforcement mechanism, but it would cost 95% of those funds to actually exercise that enforcement mechanism, does he actually have self custody of those funds?

核心问题。

The core problem.

这是现有二层设计方案（如闪电网络、状态链、ARC等）的主要扩展性限制之一。

This is one of the chief scaling limitations of existing layer two designs such as Lightning, state chains, ARC, etcetera.

任何依赖预签名交易运作的二层方案都会面临这个问题。

Any layer two that makes use of presigned transactions to function is subject to this problem.

比特币存在区块大小限制，当内存池中待处理交易需求超过区块链吞吐能力时，手续费就会上涨。

Bitcoin has a block size limit, and whenever the pending transaction demand in the mempool is greater than the throughput capacity of the blockchain, fees go up.

尽管某些大区块支持者可能声称，但我们确实缺乏为用户维持恒定低手续费的机制。

We have no mechanism, despite what some big blockers might say, to maintain a constant low fee level for users.

区块链若想扩展规模，就必然会破坏其核心价值主张。

Blockchains don't scale without destroying their core value propositions.

这迫使我们只能构建链外扩展机制，而目前唯一可行、无需信任且自主保管的解决方案就是使用预签名交易来实现。

This leaves us with no choice but to construct off chain scaling mechanisms, and so far the only viable, trustless, and self custodial solution is to use pre signed transactions to facilitate this.

这意味着如果用户不得不实际使用这些预签名交易，就必须为此支付手续费。

This means that if a user ever has to actually make use of those pre signed transactions, they have to pay the fees for them.

正因如此，交易的结构、规模及确权所需的交易数量，成为链上执行所有权主张成本的决定性因素。

Because of this, the structure, size, and number of transactions that are necessary to enforce ownership are the deciding factors when it comes to the cost of enforcing ownership claims on chain.

脚本越复杂，交易规模越大，所需交易数量越多，确权成本就越高昂。

The more complex the script, the larger the transactions, the higher the number of transactions necessary, the more expensive it becomes to enforce ownership.

所有这些因素最终累积，形成了这些系统实现自我托管的最低可行价值门槛。

All of these factors ultimately add up to create a minimum viable value to self custody with these systems.

如果在链上确权需要花费10,000聪，那么在该系统中持有低于此金额的资产从经济角度而言完全不合理。

If it is going to cost 10,000 Satoshis to enforce ownership on chain, then the idea of holding less than 10,000 Satoshis in that system is just economically irrational.

你将支付比所持资产价值更高的手续费。

You would pay more in fees than the value you have a claim to is worth.

实际上即便是10,000聪也显得微不足道。

Even 10,000 Satoshis is too small in practice.

你愿意支付相当于资产总值100%的费用来实现确权吗？

Would you want to pay 100% of the value you have in order to actually enforce ownership?

要实现真正经济高效的自我托管，被保障资产价值必须是确权成本的舒适倍数，比如3到5倍。

To be realistically cost effectively self custodied, the value being secured must be some comfortable multiple of the cost to enforce it, say three to 5x.

若达不到这个标准，该资产实际上就无法在链上完成确权。

If it isn't, then that value cannot actually be enforced on chain.

如果有人尝试，资产将被手续费吞噬殆尽。

It will be eaten by fees if someone tries.

但这也不属于托管模式。

But it's not custodial either.

就像信托系统一样，这形成了一个模糊的灰色地带。

Just like trustodial systems, this introduces an ambiguous gray area.

在考虑了被视为自我托管的新第三要求后，低于链上强制执行所需费用的小额资金显然不符合自我托管标准。

After considering the new third requirement to be considered self custodial, a small value below the fees required to enforce it on chain is clearly not self custodial.

但它也不属于托管性质。

But it's not custodial either.

虽然合法所有者可能无法经济高效地在链上强制执行所有权，但他们在二层协议中交互的任何一方同样无法经济高效地窃取这些资产。

While the rightful owner might not be able to cost effectively enforce their ownership on chain, whatever party they are interacting with in a layer two protocol cannot cost effectively steal it either.

这形成了一种墨西哥对峙局面，涉及那些本应明确属于自我托管二层网络中的小额资产安全。

This creates a sort of Mexican standoff where it comes to lower values secured on what would otherwise be unambiguously self custodial layer twos.

合法所有者无法经济高效地在链上强制执行所有权。

The rightful owner cannot cost effectively enforce their ownership on chain.

但由于参与二层的其他用户同样无法做到，他们没有积极动机通过使用旧的链下状态交易或拒绝合作更新链下余额来试图窃取资产。

But because any other users participating in the layer two cannot as well, they have no positive incentive to try to steal it by using old off chain state transactions or refusing to cooperate to update balances off chain.

他们可以通过强制合法所有者在链上提交交易来销毁其资金，但自身并不会从中获益。

They can burn the rightful owner's money by forcing them to submit transactions on chain, but they gain nothing themselves in doing so.

这就形成了一种动态：只要相关方持续合作，这些小额资产就能在链下使用和交换；但一旦合作破裂，当这些小额余额无法经济高效地在链上强制执行时，它们实质上就会蒸发。

This creates a dynamic where as long as the involved parties continue cooperating, these small values can be utilized and exchanged off chain, but in the event that cooperation breaks down, these small value balances essentially evaporate when they cannot be cost effectively enforced on chain.

情况还会更糟。

It gets worse.

这个问题在两个方面被加剧。

This problem is exacerbated in two ways.

首先是手续费上涨。

The first is fees going up.

对区块空间交易需求越大，手续费率就越高，这使得最低可行的自我托管金额门槛也随之提高。

The bigger the transactional demand is for block space, the higher the fee rates go, making the minimum viable self custodial value higher.

这是比特币需求增长的必然结果，只要这种需求是针对比特币本身而非托管服务中的余额。

This is an unavoidable consequence of demand for Bitcoin increasing, as long as that demand is for Bitcoin itself and not custodial balances with some service.

第二个问题实际上是第一个问题现有解决方案的产物。

The second is actually a result of the current solutions for the first problem.

手续费率越高，从第二层网络进出就越昂贵，这促使我们需要设计能让更多人共享单个UTXO的方案，从而至少在合作情况下将链上费用分摊给更多人。

The higher fee rates get, the more expensive onboarding and offboarding from Layer 2s gets, necessitating coming up with designs that allow more people to share an individual UTXO, allowing on chain fees, at least in the cooperative situation, to be spread between more people.

这需要使用更大的交易或更多交易，通常采用树状结构分割资金，最终分配给个人用户以覆盖更多用户。

This requires using either larger transactions or more transactions, generally structured as trees that split up funds until eventually distributing them to individual users to account for more users.

这意味着不仅单笔交易的基准费用上涨，在非合作情况下用户还需为超额交易或多笔交易支付费用以主张所有权。

This means that not only has the baseline fee for a single transaction gone up, but users need to pay fees for either larger than average transactions or more than one transaction to enforce their ownership in non cooperative situations.

那我们该怎么办？

So what do we do?

说句实话，这可能是个根本无解的问题，至少在保持与一层网络相似的安全模型范围内是如此。

To tell a harsh truth, this might be a fundamentally unsolvable problem, at least in the scope of maintaining a security model that is more or less the same as layer one.

问题的关键在于：在高费率环境下，链上主张所有权的成本上升，这迫使我们需要找到让越来越多人共享单个UTXO的方法，同时降低合作情况下的资金使用费用。

The crux of the problem comes down to this: In higher fee environments, the cost to enforce ownership on chain goes up, necessitating finding ways for more and more people to share a single UTXO, while reducing the fees to utilize funds in the cooperative case.

在非合作情况下，这种成本会随着更高费率成倍增加。

This increases the cost, magnified by whatever the higher fee rate is, in the non cooperative case.

然而，执行非合作操作的能力才是真正保障所有权的关键。

However, the ability to exercise the non cooperative case is what actually enforces ownership.

目前我们能做的最好的方案，就是寻找更节省区块空间的非合作所有权主张方式。

As of right now, the best we can do is find more block space efficient ways to enforce ownership non cooperatively.

这意味着需要新的操作码（特别是约束条款），允许单个用户从共享UTXO中提取自己的资金份额，同时确保剩余资金返回约束条款以保证其他用户也能如此操作。

This would mean new opcodes, specifically covenants, that would allow a single user to withdraw their share of funds from a shared UTXO, while at the same time guaranteeing that the rest of the funds go back into the covenant to ensure other users can do the same.

这或许能避免因用户增多导致需要更多交易来确认所有权的问题，但仍未解决手续费率本身上涨的根本性问题。

This could prevent creating the problem of more users requiring more transactions to enforce ownership, but it still doesn't deal with the fundamental problem of fee rates going up themselves.

即使在理论最优情况下，用户仍需完成一笔交易来确认资金所有权，而在手续费率较高的环境中，这笔交易将更加昂贵。

Even in the theoretical best case, a user would still need to make a single transaction to enforce their ownership over funds, and in higher fee rate environments, that will be more expensive.

这个方面可能是从根本上无法解决的。

This is the aspect that might be fundamentally unsolvable.

无论可解、无解还是介于两者之间，这都是用户必须理解的关键动态。

Whether solvable, insolvable, or somewhere in between, this is a dynamic that is critical for users to understand.

这是个灰色地带，可能出错，一旦出错就会导致用户资金损失。

It is a gray area in which things can go wrong, and when things go wrong, it can result in users losing their funds.

好的。

Okay.

我认为Shinobi很好地梳理了整个案例及其中的细微差别。

So I think Shinobi did a good job of just kinda laying out the the whole case and a bit of the nuance with it.

我发现很多人难以理解的点，正是这个灰色地带里究竟发生了什么。

And what I have found so many people have problem with, have a problem with kind of understanding is what is exactly going on in that gray area.

我一直认为这是最佳的解释方式。

And I thought this was the best way I've always thought this was the best way to explain it.

我常将其比作'相互保证毁灭'，而他称之为'墨西哥僵局'——这个类比我和许多人都用过，因为如果你想理解闪电网络中的分支、密钥机制及惩罚条款，其运作原理确实如此。

I I've always referred to it as kind of mutually assured destruction, and he refers to it as a Mexican standoff, which is actually an analogy I've used and numerous people have used because that's kind of how lightning works if you wanna understand the different branches and how the keys work and the punishment clause works in Lightning.

但在自我托管性质（比如能上链处理）与小额余额的关系上，存在些许差异。

But that's a little bit of a difference in how the self custody or the nature of, like, being able to go to on chain, relates to small balances.

正如我开头提到的，我曾与Paul Storks反复辩论，他始终坚持认为闪电网络完全依赖信任，所有进行100聪或1000聪交易的人都在完全信任、完全托管模式下操作，因为没人能在链上强制执行。

And so this is like like I mentioned before, at the beginning of this is I had a debate back and forth with Paul Storks, who was endlessly saying that, Lightning is fully trusted and everybody that's doing a 100 sat transactions and a thousand sat transactions is doing so in a fully trusted, fully custodial way because nobody can enforce it on chain.

我不确定他是否只是——我是说，这家伙有时候有点好斗，而且他非常坚持己见。

And I don't know if he was just I mean, the guy's a bit belligerent sometimes, so and he knows his opinion.

所以我确信他只是懒得真正去阅读或倾听。

So I'm sure it was just he wasn't bothering to actually read or listen.

我们实际上已经不是在对话了。

We weren't actually having a conversation anymore.

我们只是在推特上争吵，就像现在几乎所有话题都会演变成的那样。

We were just Twitter feuding, as is the case pretty much in every topic these days.

但我当时试图让他理解那种墨西哥对峙式的相互保证毁灭的语境。

But I was trying to get him to understand the context of that Mexican standoff of the mutually assured destruction.

有趣的是，这其实是早在最初就被讨论过的事情，甚至在比特币之前，特别是在比特币初期讨论各种架构时，就谈到过如何使用多重签名、多密钥、预言机等等。

And what's funny is this is actually something that was talked about, like, way back at the beginning, even even not in Bitcoin, but at the beginning of Bitcoin specifically talking about all the different constructions and how you can use, you know, multi signature and multiple keys and do oracles and all this stuff.

在2010到2012年间，人们讨论过太多关于如何扩展比特币、如何使用比特币创建无信任或最小化信任系统的想法。

So so many ideas were talked about in the 2010, 2011, 2012 era of how to scale Bitcoin, how to use Bitcoin and create trustless and or trust minimized systems.

其中中本聪特别在几个场合讨论过的，就是这种市场交易中使用的多重签名方案。

And one of them, which Satoshi specifically discussed on a couple of occasions, is this idea of a multisig where you're buying something in a marketplace.

这甚至是在暗网市场的语境下被讨论的——尽管暗网市场基本上已经实现了多重签名。

This was kind of talked about in the context of darknet markets even though darknet markets have basically done multisig.

不过它们大多数其实还是托管模式。

Well, most of them are actually custodial.

当然，我现在其实也不清楚它们具体是什么样子了。

But of course, I don't I don't really know what any of them look like these days.

但大多数要么采用完全托管模式（由交易所——抱歉——由市场平台本身来调解纠纷），要么采用2/3多重签名模式（平台不托管币，而是持有三把密钥中的一把来调解用户纠纷）。

But most of them would do either a full custodial where it was just the exchange excuse me, the the marketplace itself would help settle disputes, or, it was a two of three multisig where the marketplace actually wasn't custodying the coins, and they were holding a third key in the mix so that they could settle disputes among the users.

暗网市场之所以如此重视这一机制，是因为在这样一个需要明确信任却又风险极高的环境中，它实现了极佳的信任最小化系统。

And the reason this was so prominent for darknet markets is because it is such a good trust minimized system in a market where explicitly trust and it's an extremely high risk environment.

对吧？

Right?

就像如果交易出了问题，你其实没有追索权。

Like if things go wrong in the marketplace, you don't really have a recourse.

但中本聪早期提出的方法或概念——其实很多人也讨论过——就是这种相互保证毁灭的理念：你可以直接与买家、买卖双方建立一个2/2的多重签名。

But the method or the concept that Satoshi had talked about and well, just a lot of people in general had talked about in the early days was this idea of mutually assured destruction is that you could actually just do a two of two multisig with your buyer, with the buyer and the seller.

如果卖家确实履行了交易承诺，发送了商品或服务，那么买家就无法盗回资金。

And if the seller actually fulfilled their end of the deal and sent them the product or the service or whatever it was, well, the buyer can't steal their funds back.

所以不存在白拿——他们无法无偿获取任何东西。

So there's no there's no they're not getting anything for free.

资金已经被锁定在2/2多重签名中。

They've already locked it up into a two of two multisig.

但如果买家被骗，他们可以阻止卖家获得资金。

But if the buyer is cheated, what they can do is prevent the seller from getting the funds.

所以这本质上是一种相互保证毁灭机制。

So it's basically a mutually assured destruction.

我们双方都在这笔交易中押注了价值，如果你不履行，我就会摧毁你的价值。

We've both staked our claim of the value in this transaction, and if you don't give it to me, I'll destroy your value.

同理，如果我不支付款项，你也可以摧毁我的价值，诸如此类。

And if I don't get it, you'll just or and if I don't, provide the the payment to you, you can destroy mine, etcetera.

因此在这种机制下，假设买家想白拿商品——是根本不可能的。

So basically, in doing so, you had a situation where in the context like, let's say the buyer wanted to get something for free, well, couldn't.

对吧？

Right?

他们要么毁掉钱并毁掉自己的声誉，要么毁掉钱或失去钱并将其交给卖家。

All they could do is either destroy the money and ruin their reputation or destroy the money and or lose the money and give it to the seller.

现在这个特定系统本身有一堆注意事项，因为，你知道，卖家可能会心脏病发作，或者这只是个错误之类的，现在所有人都拿不到资金了。

Now there's a bunch of caveats about this specific system in and of itself because, you know, the the seller could have a heart attack and, you know, it was just a mistake or whatever and now everybody's out funds or whatnot.

显然这里面有很多细微差别和边缘情况，这就是为什么我认为第三方多重签名已经成为这些市场的常态，并且绝对是更稳健的解决方案。

There's obviously a bunch of nuance and edge cases and all of these things, which is why the third party multisig, I think, has just just kinda became the norm in those markets and is definitely the more robust solution to the problem.

但相互保证毁灭的理念在于，仅此一点就能创造最低摩擦的结果，基本上，合作情况对所有参与者来说都是最佳情况。

But the idea that it is mutually assured destruction is that that alone in itself creates the lowest friction outcome, create the basically, the cooperative case is the best case for all of the people involved.

他们希望完成交易并顺利进行，尽管双方都无法拿回全部价值，或者正是因为双方都无法拿回全部价值。

They want to settle that transaction and have things go smoothly even though neither one of them can actually get their full value back Or maybe specifically because neither one of them can get their full value back.

这正是正在发生的事情。

And this is exactly what's going on.

这就是为什么我能够一直进行数千笔小额闪电交易而没有任何麻烦，也是为什么闪电网络上微支付非常普遍。

It's why I'm able to do thousands of tiny lightning transactions all the time without any trouble, and why it's extremely common for micropayments to happen on Lightning.

尽管有趣的是，闪电网络上交易的规模实际上随着时间的推移而增加，而且不仅仅是美元价值。

Even though actually funny enough is the size of transactions happening on the Lightning, on the Lightning Network have actually gone up over time, and not specifically in dollars either.

比如，显然如果你进行100聪的交易并且它价值更高，那么'转移了更多价值'，但交易规模是一样的。

Like, obviously, if you're doing a 100 sat transactions and it's worth more, then quote unquote, you're transferring more value, but it's the same size transactions.

但名义上以比特币计，交易规模随着时间的推移而增加。

But nominally in Bitcoin, the size of transactions have increased over time.

我喜欢这个解释和概念的地方在于，它既不是托管式的，也不是自我托管的。

What I love about that explanation and the the concept is that it is not custodial, but it's also not self custody.

你实际上并没有能力强制执行它。

It's you don't really have the ability to enforce it.

从某种意义上说，你可以防止别人偷走它，但只能通过销毁它来实现。

Well, you do in the sense that you can prevent someone from stealing it from you, but only by destroying it.

当然，在费用极高的情况下，可能并不总是如此——要知道费用动态可能在几小时、几天内剧烈变化，在不同的市场周期中更是如此，诸如此类。

Of course, in the case of, like, really high fees, it might not be always the case, you know, that the fee dynamics change wildly in a couple of hours and days and during different periods and different cycles of the market, you name it.

所以显然，本周和下周的情况可能完全不同，关于你‘确保’资金所有权的能力究竟有多可靠。

So obviously, it could be totally different this week than it is next week as to how secure, quote, unquote, your ability to enforce the ownership of those funds really is.

但这也正是为什么我认为理解比特币基础层及其价值，将其视为法庭更有意义。

But this is also why I think understanding the Bitcoin base layer and what its value is, why it makes more sense to think about it like a court.

因为这是我们实际经历并时刻可见的鲜活案例。

Because this is something that we actually experience and see we we have a direct example of all the time.

就像有人在唐恩都乐坑了我一个甜甜圈，而店家直接拒绝。

Is it if somebody screws me out of a donut at, like, Dunkin' Donuts, and the store is just like, no.

他们会收你的钱，但就是不给你甜甜圈。

We're we're we're gonna take your money, but we're not gonna give you a donut.

这种事根本没法告上法庭。

Like, I can't take that to court.

光是试图维权或报警所需的时间精力与挫败感，就比损失一个甜甜圈要高出几个数量级。

Just the idea of trying to enforce that or calling the police requires more time and effort and frustration than just losing the donut by, like, orders of magnitude.

想象一下为个甜甜圈损失去打民事官司的场景。

You know, imagine having you go to, like, a like, have a civil court case about losing out on a donut.

但根本上，由于这种威胁存在——声誉成本远高于甜甜圈或咖啡这类小额交易本身——所有相关方的利益本质上是一致的。

But basically, because that threat is there, because the cost of the reputation is as much or more important than the simple cost of the doughnut or a coffee or, you know, some small transaction like that, there's essentially aligned interests with all the people involved.

当这个价值大到足以引发真正的争议，即有人愿意冒着声誉风险去获取所谓的金钱利益或通过坑害对方来牟利时，法院就会介入。

And when that value becomes large enough to genuinely contest in which someone can risk their reputation in order to make a quote unquote dollar profit or a a monetary profit by screwing the other party, that's when the courts get involved.

如果你拥有一个可靠的法院系统，一个能够真正以独立客观方式执行判决的体系，就能大幅提高欺诈的成本。

And if you have a reliable court system, if you have a court system that can actually enforce this in a a truly independent and objective way, you drastically increase the cost of cheating.

这正是所有关于最小化信任系统的核心理念所在。

And that's really what all of this ideas of trust minimized systems are about.

我的意思是，挖矿本质上只做这件事——这就是为什么比特币从经济角度最初就是安全的，也是我们能称之为'无需信任'的原因。因为矿工通过诚实挖矿获得的报酬更高、风险更低，远比试图替换最近几个区块更划算。

I mean, this is really kind of the only thing that mining does, and why Bitcoin is actually economically secure to begin with, and why we are able to call it trustless, is because the miners will get paid, they will earn more, and it will and it has less risk to just mine honestly than it does to replace, trying to replace the last few blocks.

这正解释了所有关于带外价值（或者说场外价值）概念的根源。比如做空期权这类情况——矿工可能通过做空比特币获利300亿美元，但要在比特币链上执行六区块重组却需要耗费他们10亿美元成本。

And this is exactly why all the ideas of out of band value or, out of, let's say let's say, like, let's say, like, short options or something, like, where somebody can like, a miner can actually make $30,000,000,000 on a short on Bitcoin, but it would cost them a billion dollars to execute the, you know, a six block reorg on the Bitcoin chain.

这时他们实际上就面临经济诱惑：通过做空期权获得的收益可能远高于维护比特币系统安全本身带来的收益。

Well, then they actually have this economic incentive where they can actually make more on the short option than on actually caring about the Bitcoin the security of the Bitcoin system itself.

代价是他们必须放弃全部...问题在于：为了获取正在贬值的资产（而比特币是增值资产），他们是否值得毁掉自己占全网半壁江山的矿机投资？

The trade off is that they have to negate their entire the the question is, is it worth destroying their entire mining investment if they have, you know, half the freaking network in order to get a depreciating asset when Bitcoin is the appreciating asset?

所以很大程度上这也取决于你试图获取的资产类型。

So a lot of it also is about the asset that you're trying to get.

如果他们想赚取更多比特币，这样做就是愚蠢的——除非他们确信这不会对比特币本身造成长期损害，但这可能创造用期权赚取的300亿美元进行短期买入的机会。

If they're trying to earn more Bitcoin, it would be stupid for them to do that Unless they actually thought it wasn't going to be long term damaging to Bitcoin itself, but it would create like a short term buying opportunity with their $30,000,000,000 profits on their options.

但一旦脱离这个系统，就必须与能源本身绑定（而不能与美元或其他任何市场挂钩），因为只有通过计算量才能证明成本的真实性——除非你能看到区块哈希开头那些零，否则无法确知实际成本。

But as soon as you're outside of the system, this is why it's it must be attached to energy itself, and it can't be attached to, dollars or any other market or anything, is because you cannot actually prove the genuine nature of the cost unless you can measure it in compute, unless you can see those zeros at the at the header of the, you know, of the the block hash, unless you can see those leading zeros, you can't know that there was actually a cost.

而一旦看到那些前导零，你就能精确知道（或者说以你一生都不可能遇到的概率）产生这个哈希所需付出的惊人成本。

And as soon as you can see those leading zeros, you know exactly how great or you know to the degree to an a degree of improbability that would never ever happen in your lifetime, a rough idea to the staggering cost of producing that hash.

但这一切都是概率性的。

But it is all probabilistic.

遵守规则、与人合作、做正确的事，远比试图钻空子或欺骗要省心得多。

It is all just lower friction to do the right thing and to cooperate and work within the rules than trying to get outside of those rules or trying to cheat.

因此我认为，考虑到区块链的局限性和整个系统的结构，我们的许多系统最终会处于这种灰色地带，这并不完全反常或出乎意料。

And so I don't think it's totally unnatural or unexpected that with the limitations of the blockchain and the way this whole thing is structured, that we end up in kind of this gray area with a lot of our systems.

但我们应该明确地把它们视为这种情况，而不是认为它们完全自主托管，然后等到后端费用成为问题才去考虑——因为如果用户没有意识到这会对他们造成多大伤害，那才是真正的问题，而他们可能还在想‘哦，没错’。

But we should be thinking about them explicitly as that, rather than this idea that they are perfectly self custodial and, you know, we'll just kinda, like, think about the fees on the back end when it becomes a problem because that's a problem if the user doesn't realize just how much that can screw them, and they are thinking that, oh, yeah.

我只是拥有这1万聪。

I just own this 10,000 sats.

无论如何，没人能把它从我这里夺走。

No matter what, nobody can take it from me.

因为事实很可能并非如此。

Because that very well might not be the case.

但关键在于，当我们讨论价值和定价时，比特币早期具有低交易费用并适用于小额零售交易和电子商务等场景是合理的，但如果它能在更高层面保障信任——比如涉及30万亿、100万亿美元市场时——它们被高价挤出市场是必然的。

But here's the thing is when talking when thinking about, like, value and pricing things out, the reason like, makes sense that Bitcoin early on is gonna have, you know, low transaction fees and work for very small retail transactions and ecommerce and all this stuff, but that naturally, if it is capable of securing trust at that higher level, when we're talking about 30,000,000,000,050 trillion, a $100,000,000,000,000 markets, there's no way for them not to get priced out.

这是不可避免的。

There's no way.

只要比特币存在任何规模限制，它就必然会被高价挤出。

If there's any limitation on scale to Bitcoin at all, it will get priced out.

但优先保护大额价值而非小额价值，这本身也是合理的。

But it also makes sense specifically to protect the larger amounts of value before the smaller amounts.

我这辈子都不知道有多少次弄丢过10美元或50美元。

I mean, there's been I don't even know how many times in my life that I've lost $10 or $50.

见鬼，我甚至因为没注意而把20美元的山莓忘在冰箱后面坏掉了。

Hell, I lost $20 in raspberries because they got pushed to the back and I didn't notice.

我忘了把它们放哪儿了大概两天，结果它们几乎立刻就长满了霉。

I forgot where they were for like two days, and they almost immediately just got mold all over them.

就像，我直接损失了20美元。

Like, I just I lost $20.

我损失了价值20美元的有机覆盆子。

I lost $20 worth of organic raspberries.

但我并不打算为此投诉。

But I'm not gonna file a complaint about it.

我也不打算重新设计我的冰箱。

I'm not gonna, like, redesign my refrigerator.

我只想记住，尽量确保不买那些快坏的水果，然后吃得更快些吧。

I'm just gonna remember to, you know, try to make sure I didn't get ones that were already next to going bad, and try to eat them faster, I guess.

但非常自然的是，你对自我保管或行使所有权能力的关注程度，与所涉价值成正比，这在任何情况下都是普遍适用的。

But it makes perfect natural sense for the degree to which you are concerned with your self custody or the ability to enforce your ownership is proportional to the amount of value in question, and that is going to be universal across the board.

而且更有道理的是，我是说，就从规模角度来考虑。

And it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense to I mean, just just think about it in terms of scale.

对吧？

Right?

比如你在某处买5美元的咖啡，用的是一种灰色地带的小额支付系统，你不完全确定是否能拿回钱，或者几乎不可能在被骗后追回那杯咖啡的钱。

Is if you're buying $5, you know, $5 coffee somewhere, and you're not sure if you can you're using a gray area micro transaction system where you're not a 100% sure or you're very unlikely to be able to actually get that back if you get screwed out of your coffee.

但之所以如此，是因为你的国家能够不受美国或联合国任意宣布的规则约束，不必按照它们的要求行事、设计经济或承担债务，而是可以自主确保资金、交易以及与伙伴国的贸易，这实际上防止了社会崩溃——这比咖啡的价值更高。

But that the reason that is the case is because your country is able to not be subject to The United States or the UN's arbitrary declarations as to what they're supposed to do or how they're supposed to design their economy, or how much debt they're supposed to take, and instead they can actually secure their own funding, their own transactions, and their own trade with their partner countries, and that literally prevents your society from collapsing, well, that's a higher value use case than the coffee.

而现在，过去几十年来有很多国家，它们本希望能有能力保护自己免受最终导致国家崩溃并沦为灾难区的外部影响和操控。

And right now, there's a whole hell of a lot of countries in the last ten, twenty, thirty, forty years who would have loved to have had the ability to save their country from external from foreign influence and manipulation that ultimately collapsed them and turned them into disaster zones.

关键在于，如果比特币能将信任机制扩展到国家层面、机构层面、民族国家层面、外汇交易层面、联邦电汇系统层面，如果它能安全地结算并平衡这些交易、账户以及机构间的协议。

So the point is, if if Bitcoin can scale trust to the layer of countries, of institutions, of nation states, of of forex trading, of Fedwire system, if it can securely settle and balance those transactions, and those accounts, and those agreements between those institutions.

那它绝无可能同时还能让我们以可承受的成本在链上用比特币购买5美元的咖啡。

There is zero chance in hell that it is also going to affordably allow us to buy $5 coffees with Bitcoin on chain.

但这并非因为情况恶化了。

But it's not because things got worse.

而是因为客观上比特币能解决更重要得多的问题，而我们被价格淘汰出这种使用场景——因为对我们来说它没那么重要，毕竟在5美元咖啡的语境下重要性上限只能是5美元。

It's because objectively, Bitcoin was able to fix vastly more important things, and we got priced out of using it that way because it wasn't that important to us because it necessarily can only be up to $5 of importance in the context of a $5 coffee.

但将其视为灰色地带，视为某种对峙僵局时，这些第二层解决方案的有趣之处在于，它们实际上比我们现有的完全信任制、完全信贷制的体系要好得多。

But thinking about it as this gray area, as this kind of Mexican standoff, the interesting thing about these layer twos is that it's actually a whole hell of a lot better than what we what we currently have, which is just fully trusted and fully credit based.

在这个系统里，比如麦当劳，无论是我还是麦当劳都无法在汉堡交易中欺诈对方，双赢且有利可图的结果就是他们给我汉堡，我付钱——这套基于信贷和完全信任的机制目前运转得相当不错。

A system where, you know, McDonald's, neither me nor McDonald's can screw each other out of the value of a burger, and that the mutually beneficial and monetarily beneficial outcome is for them to give me my burger and me to give them my money, which also just happens to work pretty damn well when it's credit based and fully trusted.

但现在我们实际上有能力在有人试图欺诈时强制执行所有权保护？

But now we actually have the ability to prevent, to enforce our ownership in the case of someone trying to cheat us?

我是说，仔细想想。

I mean, think about it.

想象一下如果你的银行试图黑掉你账户里一大笔钱，而你却能反制他们。

Imagine if your bank tried to screw you out of a bunch of money in your account, and you could just screw them back.

人们有多少次因为不正当理由在银行或冻结账户中损失数百数千美元？

I mean, how many times do people lose hundreds or thousands of dollars in a bank or in a frozen account for illegitimate reasons?

而你毫无追索权。

And you have no recourse.

你申诉也没用。

You call the plea it doesn't matter.

你不去提交报告。

You don't you file a report.

你向银行投诉。

You complain to the bank.

你打电话。

You get on the phone.

你知道的，到处发帖，试图在社交媒体上讲述你的故事，希望有人关心这件事。

You, you know, blast out, you try to tell your story on social media so that somebody cares about it.

你给你的代表打电话，到处留言，但什么都没改变。

You call your representative, you leave voicemails all over the place, and nothing ever happens.

或者PayPal因为你发的一条推文——恰好与他们的政治立场不太一致——就冻结了你存有2万美元的账户。

Or PayPal locks you out of your account with $20,000 into it because of a tweet that you made that just happened to, like, sort of disagree with them politically.

视角很重要。

Perspective matters.

在这种事情上，立场总是很重要的。

All like, always matters when it comes to this type of thing.

关键在于你要明白自己确实可以维护所有权。

It's understanding that you could actually enforce your ownership.

比如，即使你只有50美元，当银行或某人想坑你时，你仍然可以阻止他们把钱从你这儿拿走。

Like, even if you only had $50 in this situation where the bank or somebody is trying to screw you, is that you could still just stop them from taking it from you.

当然，如果你在PayPal账户里有3万美元，你很容易就能拿回来，即使手续费要100美元，也完全值得。

Of course, if you had $30,000 in your channel with PayPal, you could easily get that back and even if fees were a $100, that's more than enough.

显然，这绝对划算。

Obviously, it's like vastly worth it.

正如Shinobi所说，你必须确保价值是费用的三到五倍。

You've got that, just like Shinobi says, you have to have like a three to five x amount of value versus the fees.

但我们目前生活的世界没有任何追索权。

But we currently live in a world where there are no there is no recourse.

没有墨西哥对峙的选择。

There is no Mexican standoff option.

也没有开放的无需许可系统让我们持续创新并更好地解决这个问题。

And there's no open permissionless system where we can keep innovating and keep trying to solve this problem better.

我喜欢他在最后提到契约，因为这很可能是最能帮助实现单笔交易退出的操作码，而其他人都可以留在契约中。

And I like that he brings up covenants here at the end because it's basically the the op code most likely to help in the ability to to still bring it down to that single transaction exit where everyone else can stay in the covenant.

所以你实际上并没有分解庞大的交易树结构，我记得ARC特别提到了这一点。

So you're not actually breaking down, like, a huge tree structure of transactions or like there's a I think it's ARC specifically that has it.

如果你想在ARC中强制执行自我托管，你可能需要下探三层分支，这意味着你必须广播三笔不同交易才能解冻资金。

Like that if you are trying to enforce your self custody in the ARC, you you might be like three branches down, which means you have to you literally have to broadcast three different transactions before you can unravel your funds from it.

具体细节我可能记错了，而且自从上次和Barack等人讨论后可能已有变化。

I could be wrong on exactly how, you know, the nuances of that, and it's probably changed since the last time I talked to, you know, Barack or somebody about it.

但Shinobi想表达的是：为了让更多人参与并轻松使用，交易系统内置的复杂结构越多，强制执行自我托管的成本就越高。

But this is exactly what Shinobi is getting at, is that the more complex and the larger the transactions or the more, you know, tree structures or whatever that are built into the transaction system in order to have more people on board and easily be able to use it means that it literally is also going to cost more to enforce their self custody.

这对扩展性既有帮助，也有阻碍。

So it helps in the scaling, but it also doesn't.

在自我托管溯源或强制执行方面，它实际上对扩展性产生了反作用。

It does the reverse in the scaling of the self custody provenance or the enforcement.

那么这一切会导致什么结果？

So what does this all lead to?

嗯，这导向了一种市场解决方案。

Well, it leads to a market solution.

我认为我们有个想法，它最终会导向市场解决方案，或者说我们希望它成为市场解决方案，在一个开放的、去中心化的点对点协议中，通过某种方式、某种结构或操作码，让系统能够证明每个人都能强制执行，而且似乎没有成本，或者你可以随时与任何你想分摊成本的人分摊成本并聚合一切。

And I think we have this idea that it's gonna lead to a market solution in or we want it to be a market solution in, you know, open decentralized peer to peer protocol in some way or some construction or opcode that makes that makes this system prove like everybody can enforce it and there's somehow there's no cost or you can always just split up the cost with anybody who you wanna split up the cost with and aggregate everything.

但这看起来是个非常非常困难、甚至可能在哲学上无解的问题，要同时实现这两件事。

But that seems like a really, really difficult and possibly, you know, kind of philosophically intractable problem to have both of these things at the same time.

就像，这就是为什么比特币... 我是说，也许不是。

Like, this is why Bitcoin I mean, maybe not.

也许不是，你知道，比特币本身在很长一段时间里似乎也是个无解的问题。

Maybe not, you know, Bitcoin was itself seemed to be an intractable problem for a really long time.

但除此之外，很可能还存在一个更简单的问题，而比特币本身实际上可以帮助在全球范围内以真正无许可、开放的方式实现一个真正的全球开放市场——这就是保险。

But in lieu of that, there is also very potentially a much simpler problem, and that Bitcoin itself can actually help make viable in a truly global and permissionless and and like open way for a genuinely global open market for this is insurance.

我是说，想象一下，如果你在支付... 你拥有自己所谓的'支票账户'的自主保管权，而你通过LSP或其他方式支付1%的费用。

I mean, imagine if you're paying, you know, you you have self custody of your quote, unquote checking account, and you're paying 1% with your LSP or whatever it is.

或者让我们做一件实际上需要或可能需要在交互中涉及第二方或第三方的事情，这样你可以更明确地思考保险的作用。比如说你正在与ARC合作。

Or let's let's do something that's that actually requires or could require a second or third party in in the interaction, so that you can think more explicitly about the role of the insurance, is let's say you are working with ARC.

对吧？

Right?

这将需要三笔交易，或者只是一笔庞大的、非常臃肿的、低效的交易来强制执行你的所有权。

And it's gonna take three transactions or just one big, really fat, retarded transaction in order to enforce your ownership.

你在那里有几百美元，但如果你把它上链执行，实际上会损失一半。

And you have a few $100 in there, but you're literally gonna lose half of it by taking it on chain to enforce it.

但你每次交易时只需向第三方支付一小部分费用或小额手续费。

But you spend just a small percent or a small fee every time you transact or something to a third party.

他们实际上是一名见证人。

And they are actually a witness.

他们在你的钱包中与你合作并签署，或者我想你甚至不需要参与。

They work with you in your wallet and they sign or you I I guess you wouldn't even need to.

实际上，你可以将他们的签名作为交易的第三方部分，其中包含你的分支（即退出路径），但同时还有一个多签分支与这个保险方共同作为退出路径，他们可以实际为你支付费用。

You can actually just have their signature as a part of a third part of the transaction where you have your branch that is your exit, but then you also have a branch that is an exit in a multi signature with this insurance party where they can actually pay the fee for you.

如果这个灰色地带——这些不同协议相互确保毁灭的市场区域——实际上95%的情况下一切顺利，或者说97%、98%的情况下事情按预期发展。

And if this gray area, this mutually assured destruction market zone of all of these different protocols is in fact, you know, 95% everything goes well, or 97% or 98%, things just go as they would be expected to go.

这对那些能站出来说‘我们将为2%出错概率提供保障’的人来说是个巨大的市场机会。

That's a huge market opportunity for someone who can come in and say, well, we will ensure the 2% in which things go wrong.

他们只需支付费用，或者支付费用让你进入新的环节。

And that they simply pay the fee or they they pay the fee to get you into a new arc.

实际上是由他们来决定，假设你在第一环节，他们会说‘好吧，我们的备用方案是你将与这个LSP二号开通闪电通道’。

So they're actually the ones deciding on like, let's say you're in arc number one, and so what they do is they they say, okay, well, our backup is that you're gonna open up a lightning channel with this l s LSP number two.

这就是多重签名真正的作用。

And so that's actually what that multi signature does.

就像一次跳转就能与另一家机构开通通道，这样你仍能访问它，可以继续操作你的支票账户，就像平常一样，基本上只在出问题时才会触发。

It's like a one bounce to then open up a channel with this other institution so that you still have access to it and you can still work on your, you know, go through your checking account just like you normally would, and it basically only kicks in in the case of something going wrong.

他们的工作是半托管性质的，属于灰色地带，或者技术上说是非托管的在线服务。

Their job is a semi custodial, it's a gray area or technically non custodial, keeping things online service.

如果这类保险或构建模式不可行，那可能意味着问题本身不够大，不足以支撑一个解决问题的市场。

And if this type of insurance or type of construction wasn't viable, well, then it probably means that the problem isn't as big a problem, isn't big enough to sustain a market to solve it.

但如果我们看到手续费涨到——以今日美元价值计算——50美元、100美元甚至1000美元，老实说我认为如果比特币持续扩容，如果比特币真能实现信任扩容，这种情况就不可避免，虽然听起来不太美妙。

But if we see fees get to, you know, $50,100, a thousand dollars in like today's value dollars, which I I honestly kinda think is inevitable if Bitcoin just keeps scale if Bitcoin actually can scale trust, I I just think we get there, as not fun as that sounds.

如果我们真的认为比特币能修复货币体系进而改变世界，那么它只能通过先解决最高价值的问题，再逐步解决低价值问题来实现这一目标。

If we drew if we truly think if we, like, Bitcoin fixes the money and that will fix the world, well, it's gonna fix the world only by fixing the highest value things before it fixes all the lower value things.

我这么说并不是指时间顺序上的先后。

And I don't mean that in the sense of like chronologically.

我的意思是，最高价值的事物必须首先得到保障，低价值问题才能随之迎刃而解。

I mean it in the sense of like the the highest value thing has to actually be, secured before the low value thing is by extension actually fixed.

所以如果有高价值问题愿意支付1000美元来解决，那么那些只愿付5美元的问题自然会被市场淘汰。

So if there is a high value thing that's willing to pay a thousand dollars to solve its problem, then the thing that's only willing to pay $5 to solve its problem is necessarily going to get priced out.

我个人相信比特币将解决这些高价值问题。

And I personally believe that Bitcoin will solve those higher value problems.

但这一切都还在快速演变，我承认我曾以为我们早已进入手续费高昂的阶段。

But all of this will keep evolving a lot and I I will admit that I thought we would enter into a place where fees were much higher already when, you know, getting to the zone we're in.

不过比特币离货币化还有很长的路要走，现在的情况倒也合理。

But I guess it still makes sense too that we're I mean, Bitcoin is still far from being monetized, and it's got a long, long way to go.

有趣的是，我们正处于一个中间地带：用户群体已经觉醒，但零售支付仍未普及——毕竟它本就不是为零售场景优化的。

And essentially, what it's it's funny, we're kind of in this middle zone where we know the user itself the users themselves kind of are aware, and it's not really heavily being used for retail payments because it's just not optimized for retail payments.

所有二级解决方案或二层网络——比如我提到的闪电网络——其实更适合作企业间的结算层。

And all the secondary solutions or layer two solutions that I think are much better positioned or much better designed as a sort of business a business to business settlement layer, talking about Lightning specifically in this context.

但这些商业层、机构层乃至国家金融层的发展速度，还跟不上区块链吞吐量的需求。

Well, the growth in those layers of the business and merchant layer and the larger institution and nation state and financial layers have not grown enough to actually meet the demand of the the blockchain limit.

而零售应用虽然触及了区块链手续费可承受范围内的极限容量，

Whereas the retail that did meet the demand of the blockchain that did actually reach the limits of what the blockchain can facilitate for manageable amounts of fees has.

这种状况已多次出现，导致它始终难以成为主流应用场景。

It has hit that multiple times, and because of that, it's been basically unadopted as a use case.

所以我们有点像处在这个中间地带，既意识到并逐渐远离了那些原本占据链上需求大部分的东西，但又还没真正迎来最有可能替代它的需求上升拐点。

So it's kinda like we're in this middle zone where we've realized and kind of drawn back from the thing that was, you know, filling up the majority of its on chain demand, but we still haven't actually reached the cusp of or the the upward curve of the demand that is most likely to replace it.

技术上来说，大概能容纳两兆或1.7兆的交易量吧，就是那些理论上的隔离见证、区块重量之类的废话。

And one megabyte or, I guess, technically, like two megabytes or 1.7 megabytes when it comes to number of transactions that can fit, you know, theoretical segwit, block weight, whatever bullshit.

我们在第二层需求领域还没达到那种容量，所以实际上没有形成显著的手续费压力。现在唯一会出现显著手续费压力的情况，就是有人在区块链里塞一堆阴茎图片或JPEG的时候。

We have not reached that capacity in the kind of second tier demand space, to actually to actually have significant fee pressure, which is why the only time we actually have significant fee pressure these days is when somebody's putting a bunch of dick butts or JPEGs in the blockchain.

不过这些都挺有意思的。

It's all interesting though.

这些都很有意思。

It's all interesting.

我认为我们总是拿它和比特币承诺给我们的理想世界比较，而不是和过去对比、理解重大突破在哪里，这其实是在自我设限。

And I think we do ourselves a disservice by constantly comparing it to this perfect world that Bitcoin was supposed to give us, rather than comparing it to where we're coming from and understanding where the major leaps are.

因为还有件事——其实我在Rally比特币聚会小组里讨论过这个。

Because another thing that I think, and I talked about this in and we had a conversation about in the rally Bitcoin meetup group actually.

我当时在说我认为比特币会如何修复信贷体系。

I was talking about how I think Bitcoin's gonna fix credit.

这是最有价值的部分之一，像Leadin和Unchained这些比特币抵押贷款的概念，其实是这个拼图中非常关键的一块，因为它展示了所谓的'托管模式'能有多安全多独特。

Is it one of the most valuable and this is like lead in and unchained and these ideas of like Bitcoin backed loans is actually like a really important piece of this puzzle is because it shows you how secure and how unique the quote unquote custodial model can be.

想象一下某种标准机构。

And just imagine a sort of standards agency.

比如说，假设很多听众都信任Guy Swan。

Like, let's say let's say, you know, a bunch of people listen to the show trust Guy Swan.

对吧？

Right?

不管你们出于什么愚蠢原因决定信任我，反正你们认定我是个可靠的人。

Let's let's for whatever dumb reason y'all have come up with, you've decided that, I'm a trustworthy person.

我可以审核那些运行电子现金系统的机构，它们都有多重签名背书。

Well, I could vet certain institutions that are running e cash systems, and they have a multi signature backing.

在这种多重签名交易中，当有人说'我在这个电子现金系统里有一个比特币'时，你需要为所有电子现金签名创建默克尔根——包括签名本身和所有电子现金的发行记录。这样当你收到价值100聪的电子现金时，就能证明自己确实属于这个默克尔根，确实是这个特定时间存入多重签名地址的1比特币的一部分。

And in that multi signature transaction where they're like, I have one Bitcoin up in this e cash system, you create a Merkle root of all the e cash signatures, of the signature, the issuance of all of the e cash in that, where you can actually receive a 100 sats worth of e cash and actually prove that you're in the Merkle root and you're part of the 1 Bitcoin that was issued at this exact time when one Bitcoin was put into this multisig.

这样你就能确信自己持有的是完全有保障的电子现金。

And you just know that you have perfectly backed e cash.

然后盖伊·斯旺或他的审核企业——管他叫什么——这种机构的唯一存在意义就是成为多重签名方之一，防止有人卷款跑路。

And then Guy Swan or Guy Swan vetting enterprises, I don't know, whatever, is an institution that whose sole purpose is to be a part of this multisig so that they can't just run away with the funds.

当赎回发生时，这就像是个审核过程：我们质押担保这些电子现金的真实性，同时作为密钥系统的参与者确保没人能轻易卷走那1个比特币。

And that when redemption occurs, that it's basically like a vetting of we are staking that, yes, they proved this e cash, and that we are being a part of the key system so that they can't just pick up and run away with that one Bitcoin.

现在你真正拥有了一个可无限扩展的信用工具，还有多方信任机制确保没人能轻易携款潜逃。

And now you actually have a credit instrument that scales transactionally forever, and you have a multi party trust system to ensure that nobody can just like up and run off with the funds.

在没有复杂协议解决方案的情况下，这种市场自发的解决方案可能足以让这个系统扩展到全球范围。

Like, that's a market solution to something in the in the absence of finding some elaborate protocol solution, and that might be more than enough to actually scale this thing to the whole world.

想想这有多安全。

You think about how secure that is.

这简直是我们当前处境的一次革命性飞跃。

It like like a revolutionary leap from what we are having to deal with today.

更重要的是，你完全消除了任何系统性货币问题的风险。

And on top of it, you've completely eliminated the risk of any systemic monetary problem.

在这个精巧结构中，政治风险几乎不复存在，司法管辖风险也大幅降低——至少对那些能把机构密钥存放在任何地方的企业而言是这样。

Like, the whole risk involved in solving this in this little structure that, like, political risk kinda goes out of the window, jurisdictional risk becomes a far less, far lower risk dynamic, at least for the businesses that can, know, put their keys to their institutions anywhere.

你可以在不同司法管辖区明确选择它们。

You can explicitly choose them in different jurisdictions.

这类问题在你进入日常领域前就已基本解决——比如只需操心基本支票账户，或者日常使用的几百美元资金。

And these types of things are kind of fundamentally solved before you get into the realm of, you know, just worrying about your your basic checking account or, you know, couple $100 worth of funds that you use day to day.

最重要的是要记住：什么是经济的？

And it's so important to remember, like, what's economical?

即，在你想解决的任何特定方式中，投入时间、精力和必要复杂程度去解决是否合理。

Like, what does it make sense to spend the time, the energy, and the the level of complexity necessary to solve it in any particular way that you wanna solve it.

这总让我想起乔治·霍茨，那个用智能手机摄像头就搞出自动驾驶汽车comma.ai的家伙。

And always reminds me of George Hotts, the guy who created a comma comma dot a I, which is the self driving car that's just like with like literally a smartphone camera.

他此前更出名的事迹是破解了PlayStation——找到了安装其他软件的方法，结果被索尼法律追责。

And he was famous before that because he was the guy who, like, hacked or or got the and figured out how to put other software and stuff on the PlayStation, and they, like, legally went after him.

他们试图毁掉他的生活。

They tried to, like, destroy his life.

但这很讽刺。

But it was funny.

他谈到Waymo等公司花数十亿搞自动驾驶汽车时——

He talks about self driving cars and the stuff like the Waymo and all of these things that they spent like billions of dollars.

简直是一场噩梦，彻头彻尾的灾难。

And like what a nightmare, what a disaster it is.

他不理解法定货币帝国的运作逻辑：3亿美元可以轻易打水漂，而普通人花9000美元可能都要谨慎十倍。

And he doesn't understand it from the context of like the fiat empire and how easily you can destroy $3,000,000,000 where how like, you know, 10 times the amount of care might go into literally, you know, spending $9,000 with a normal person.

但一旦进入债务领域，所有逻辑都会崩塌。

But as soon as you enter into the realm of debt, it nothing makes sense.

你知道，就像你花6万美元买辆自动驾驶汽车，因为你只需支付月供，实际成本不会压在你身上，因为等到你真正还清贷款时，你的钱已经贬值一半了。

You know, like you're spending $60,000 to get a self driving car because you're just paying that monthly fee and the actual cost is not gonna be born on you because by the time you're actually paying that off in full, your dollar's gonna be worth half as much.

或者更关键的是，你欠的美元会贬值一半。

Or more importantly, the dollar you owe is going to be worth half as much.

这就像房产和房贷，对吧？你可以把房子持有十年，它的价值很可能会翻倍，远超你最初的贷款额。

It's like houses and mortgages, right, is you can just kinda hold the house for ten years and it's probably gonna be worth twice whatever your original mortgage was.

现在你基本上已经还清房贷了——只要卖掉房子，你甚至不用实际偿还任何贷款。

And now you you basically got you paid off your mortgage if you sold your house and you never you didn't have to pay anything off.

这种法币循环下，不可持续债务的永续补贴现象...自动驾驶汽车的经济本质就是：如果你必须重新设计车辆，投入数十亿美元搞激光雷达、各种雷达和满车摄像头这些疯狂配置，这永远无法回本。

That Fiat cycle of never ending subsidy of unsustainable debts talks about, like, the just the sheer economics of a self driving car is that if you have to, like, redesign the car and you have to put, like, billions and billions of dollars in these crazy things with LIDAR and tons of different radars and cameras and shit all over the place, like, that's never gonna pay it pay for itself.

除非人为维持市场，否则这种投资根本不可能获得任何合理的回报。

That's never actually going to make any sort of return of a return that actually makes sense unless they can artificially sustain their market.

他说原因很简单：

He said for a very simple reason.

我们早就有自动驾驶汽车了，

We already have self driving cars.

它叫优步。

It's called Uber.

用低得多的价格，你就能享受全程接送服务。

And for a much lower price, you can just be driven around everywhere.

如果我们明确要解决自动驾驶问题，就必须做到比优步更便宜。

And then if we solve explicitly, if we solve the self driving problem, we need to do it cheaper than that.

所以他卖900美元的改装套件，2019年后产的汽车装上就能实现真正的自动驾驶。

Just why he sells like a $900 kit that you can plug into cars after like 2019 and it will literally it literally does self driving.

如果你还没看过的话，应该去看看那个。

And you should check that out if you haven't.

我其实在考虑给我们的新车也装一个。

I'm actually thinking of getting one for our newer car.

它叫Comma，c o m ma.ai。

It's called Comma, c o m ma.ai.

但我提出这种整体思考方式的原因是，你不需要发明一个全新、更好、效率提升十倍的分布式点对点协议来解决本可以通过多重签名解决的问题——比如将哈希值加盖到交易中，或是电子现金。

But why I bring that whole thinking, that whole mode of thinking up, is because you don't need to invent a new and better and 10x more improved decentralized peer to peer protocol to solve something that can just be solved with multi signature, like a hash stamped into a transaction and e cash.

或者可以通过某种非常廉价、类似众包分摊的服务来解决，比如保险。

Or that can be solved with a really cheap, like, crowd divided up service of some sort, like an insurance.

就像我曾经拥有——或者现在新系统里可能还保留着的那种。

Like I have or I used to have, or maybe I do still have it in the new thing.

我甚至记不清以前买过什么保险，比如视力保险，每月大概只要8美元左右。

I can't even remember what I used to have, like, eye insurance, and it cost me, like, $8 or something like that.

但当我收到账单时，通常是四五百甚至上千美元——如果真出了事需要理赔，金额就远不止8美元了。

But when I have a bill, it's usually 4 or 500, a thousand not like if something happened and I needed to call on that insurance, it's way more than $8.