第15季第42集：超级测试网与Shinobi谈那些糟糕的比特币项目

但我确实认为存在解决方案。

But, yeah, I do think that, there are, there are ways to solve this.

所以那些说'我们会解决'的人，我们终将做到。

And, so those who say we'll figure it out, we will.

他们说得对，我们会找到解决办法的。

They're right, we will figure it out.

但没有理由不开始行动。

But there's no excuse to not start doing it.

解决方案都是现成的。

Like the solutions are available.

但这需要在协议层面全面解决，比如制定规范。

It needs to be comprehensively dealt with at the protocol level though, like in a specification.

必须建立一套统一的协议标准，让所有客户端都能理解并遵循，否则整个生态系统就会因为密钥管理方案不同而开始分裂——比如我需要特定软件才能关注某人。

It needs to be something that every client can have a singular like protocol for this that they can understand and follow, or you're just going to start fragmenting the entire ecosystem in terms of, well, I need this piece of software to even be able to follow this person because of the the key management scheme that they use.

在我看来，这正是Noster的根本问题之一。

And, like, that's this is part of the fundamental problem with Noster, in my opinion.

所有人都刻意回避在核心层面解决问题。

Like, everybody, like, completely eschews the idea of addressing things at such a core level.

就像直接...

Like just do

搞个nip提案，你随便弄个方案就能用之类的。

a nip and like you can throw your own thing and it'll work out or whatever.

这就是你刚才说的。

And that's what you just said.

你在嘲笑那些说要制定规范并遵循的人。

You're making fun of people for saying create a specification and start following it.

但你的建议恰恰就是制定规范让大家遵循。

But that's exactly what your suggestion was, is create a specification and everyone start following it.

我怎么会忘记Noster不是比特币呢？

Where was I able to remember that Noster is not Bitcoin?

但确实不是，因为你...

But it's not, because you

他们当时说的是，他们的解决方案是，哦，先快速处理一下然后开始跟进，你还用滑稽的语调模仿。

were saying, and their solution is, oh, do a nip and then start following it, you did in a funny voice.

那是在开玩笑

That's making fun

正好针对你刚才提出的建议。

of exactly the suggestion you just suggested.

好吧，数据。

Okay, Data.

但你他妈懂我意思吧。

You get my fucking point though.

所有人都需要达成共识，关于如何解决这个问题，而不是各自朝百万个不同方向乱跑，用百万种不同方式解决。

Everybody needs to be on the same page of, like, how to solve this problem, not just everybody running in a million different directions, solving it in a million different ways.

不，我认为那样更好。

No, think that's the better way.

让每个人用自己的方式解决，让最优方案胜出。

Have everyone solve it their own way and let the best one win.

就是别，别试图强迫所有人都遵循单一标准。

Like don't, don't try and force everyone to follow us a single specification.

让大家各显神通。

Let everyone do whatever they want.

然后用户自然会跟随，用户会选择最佳方案。

And then users will follow, users will go to the best solutions.

接下来我们清单上的SeedCider。

Next to me on our list, SeedCider.

SeedCider很烂，至少我听说是这样，我自己从没用过。

So SeedCider sucks, at least so I've heard, I've never used it.

但就像我说的，其实大部分都是你在点评这些，而我主要是在为它们辩护，这完全出乎我预料。

But so I talked about well, you did most of the talking about most of these things and I've been mostly defending them, which is not what I expected.

我无法为SeedSigner辩护，所以

I can't defend SeedSigner, so

尽管说吧。

go to town.

用树莓派这种通用计算平台做密钥管理本身就是愚蠢的想法。

It's like just the idea of using a general computing platform like a Raspberry Pi for key management is retarded.

你需要应对的硬件、固件、操作系统等底层复杂性，以及在此基础上构建的钱包应用软件。

Like the complexity of what you have to deal with in terms of like hardware, firmware, the operating system that you are actually building all the wallet application software on top of.

这就是一团无法审计、难以简化分析的复杂乱麻，处处都是可能被攻破的漏洞。

It is just a giant mess of complexity and ways that things can be compromised, can go wrong, like that you can't actually audit or keep like simple and analyzable.

这绝对是我见过最愚蠢的密钥管理方案之一。

And it's just, it's one of the dumbest fucking, like, key management tools I have ever seen made in this space.

唯一比这更蠢的大概就是JW Weatherman那个用七张CD运行的Python脚本——他幻想中的15岁...

Like, the only dumber thing I can think of is JW Weatherman's fucking retarded seven CD fucking, like, Python script that his imaginary 15 Yeah.

T。

T.

冷存储什么的。

Cold or something.

对。

Yeah.

这根本就是个灾难性的密钥管理系统设计。

But, like, it's just it's a horrific design for a key management system.

就因为用了树莓派系统？

Because it uses the Raspberry Pi based operating system?

没错。

Yeah.

你看Keith Mukai最近的工作，他正把项目迁移到ESP32平台，试图摆脱树莓派这种通用设备，转向更简单、更易分析的微控制器系统——底层复杂度越低，潜在攻击面就越小。

And like, you know, Keith Mukai, you can see, like a lot of the work he's been doing recently is trying to port things over to like, I think it's an ESP32 based platform and actually try to shift the project away from like a general thing like a Raspberry Pi to a microcontroller system that actually is a lot simpler, a lot easier to analyze, lot less complexity that you're building on top of that all is potential, like, threat vectors.

所以这次，不同于你之前的大部分批评都是'我想要某个功能但还没人开发出来'

So this time, instead of most of your criticisms so far have been, there's a feature I want someone to build and they haven't built it yet.

而这次是'他正在朝某个功能方向努力，但还没完全实现，所以很糟糕'

And this time, it's there's a feature that he's starting to move towards, but he has he's not there yet, so it sucks.

好吧，这很公平

Okay, that's fair.

这很公平

That's fair.

如果我认为...是的，如果有人看到金色，觉得另一边的草更绿并试图过去，显然他们现在所处的棕色区域或其他地方必须停止

If I think it's if, yeah, if if someone sees the golden, the grass is green on the other side and they're trying to get to the other side, clearly the brown side of the field or wherever they're currently at must stop.

所以听起来他们其实是同意你的

So yeah, that sounds sounds like they agree with you though.

否则他们就不会试图改变现状了

Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to change it.

但我很喜欢Seed Signer

But I love the Seed Signer.

我觉得对生活在第三世界国家的人来说很方便，只要他们有树莓派

I think it's convenient for people who live in third world countries or whatever, and they have access to Raspberry Pi.

他们可以轻松跨越边界

They can just move from one border to the other.

我记得Seed Signer有个分叉版本内置了贪吃蛇或俄罗斯方块，这样能提供一些可否认性

I think there's a fork of a Seed Signer that has a game of snake or Tetris, So it provides some deniability.

它看起来不像Trezor那些设备

It doesn't look like a Trezor or whatever.

我很喜欢Trezor

I love the Trezor.

我认为它是硬件钱包的黄金标准

I think it's the gold standard for hardware wallets.

说到硬件钱包，我还是抱团取暖的赞助商呢。

But speaking of hardware wallets, I'm also sponsored by huddling.

切。

Ch.

他们有这个，你见过他们。

They have this you met them.

他们是波尔托和另一个叫达科的人。

They're Polto and the other guy, Darko.

他们还举办关于如何与莉安娜合作的研讨会。

And they do seminars about how to work with Liana.

是啊。

Yeah.

我见过莉安娜那家伙。

I met the Liana guy.

不不。

No, no.

那是凯文。

That's Kevin.

那是另一个人。

That's someone else.

呃，我不确定是否见过你说的其他那些人。

Well, I don't know if I met the other people you say I met.

他们是瑞士人。

They're Swiss guys.

他们有一家咨询公司。

They have a consultancy firm.

他们提供多签、遗产继承等各种托管方案。

They provide multisig and inheritance and all sorts of setups.

如果你持有大量比特币，需要帮助避免在家中保管，或是代表公司想购买比特币但不知如何管理多重签名，可以联系他们。

If you hold a lot of Bitcoin and you need help to not hold it in your house or you're a part of a company that's that wants to buy Bitcoin and you don't know how to manage a multisig, then give them a call.

访问hudlink.ch。

Go to hudlink.ch.

其实你不用打电话给他们。

Actually, you don't give them a call.

你可以发邮件或其他方式联系。

You send them an email or something.

他们总部在瑞士，能提供美国无法实现的隐私保护。

And they are based in Switzerland, so they do offer some privacy that you don't get in The United States.

顺便说一句，他们比Casa优秀多了。

And they're much better than Casa, by the way.

录音。

Record.

因为他们不掌管你的密钥。

Because they don't hold your keys.

录一段电话留言然后通过邮件发送。

Record a phone call message and then put it in an email.

Hodling.ch。

Hodling dot c h.

他们属于Spectre DIY团队。

And they're of the Spectre DIY.

其实我很好奇你有没有看过那个方案。

Actually, I'm curious if you took a look at that one.

关于Seed Signer，我认为如果人们能接触到树莓派，获取ESP32应该同样容易。

So the seed signer, I think that if people have access to a Raspberry Pi, they probably have just as easy access to ESP 30 two's.

各位，Target超市有卖这玩意儿吗？

Y'all they sell them at Target?

像是上帝，也许吧。

Like God, maybe.

它们就像玩具箱里的东西，孩子们用ESP32来制作小玩意儿。

They're like in toy boxes for for making stuff, like kids use ESP 30 two's to make little

算了。

never mind.

我已经很久没去过Target超市了。

I have not been to a Target and I don't know how long.

总之，我觉得它们可能和树莓派在同一个地方销售。

Anyway, think there's they're probably sold wherever Raspberry Pis are sold.

所以如果你

So if you

能买到树莓派，大概也能找到ESP32。

could buy the Raspberry Pi, you could probably find an ESP32.

而且ESP32更便宜。

And that's cheaper, the ESP32.

但我还看到Ben Ark做了一个Bowser钱包，那也是在模拟游戏。

But I also saw a Bowser Wallet was made by Ben Ark, and that is also simulating a game.

不过它不是用树莓派实现的，而是

But instead of doing it on a Raspberry Pi, does it

用ESP32。

on an ESP 32.

嗯。

Mhmm.

看起来就像你在这个设备上玩马里奥游戏，实际上它是个硬件钱包。

And it's like you can make it look like you're playing a a Mario game on this device, but it's actually a hardware wallet.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这是在伪装。

It's basquerading.

我爱你，本·阿克。

I love you, Ben Ark.

希望你在听这些话。

I hope you're listening to this.

是啊。

Yeah.

说到那些确实很糟糕的项目，我们应该

Speaking of projects that don't that do suck, we should

把艾伦的片段也列在这个清单上。

have put Ellen bits on this list.

其实我喜欢欧文的片段。

I actually like Owen bits.

我也是。

I do too.

虽然它很糟糕，但不代表我不喜欢。

Just because it sucks doesn't mean I don't like it.

我的大部分作品都很糟糕。

Most of my stuff sucks.

我们还没讨论过那些呢。

We haven't talked about any of those yet.

但很多情况下，事情一开始都很糟糕。

But, like, a lot of it has to do with things start out sucking.

很少有东西刚问世时就很出色。

Rarely is anything really good when it first comes out.

它们起初很糟糕，然后你努力改进它们。

They start out sucking and then you try to improve them.

我喜欢的另一种思考方式是，经常使用某个工具的人总能告诉你它为什么糟糕，比如它的痛点。

Another way I like to think about this is people who use a tool a lot can always tell you why it sucks, like the pain points of it.

但他们频繁使用或对它诸多抱怨的事实，也恰恰说明这是个非常有用的工具。

But the very fact that they're using it a lot or that they have lots of complaints about it also implies that it's really useful tool.

所以就像所有这些东西一样，感谢你们创造了它们。

So like all these things, thank you guys for making them.

如果它们没用，我们也不会抱怨。

We wouldn't complain about them if they weren't useful.

索菲亚·贾菲现在一定很难过，因为你批评了诺斯特和艾伦·比茨。

Sofia Jaffe must feel very bad right now because you criticized Noster and Ellen Bitts.

但他并不是创造者。

But he didn't create it.

他掌握了它。

He's got it.

是啊。

Yeah.

他曾经是我们的创意艾伦。

He was He's been our creative Ellen.

据我所知，他是艾伦·比茨项目中第二活跃的编码员。

The second most active coder in Ellen Bitts as far as I know.

嗯，这可能就是它糟糕的原因。

Well, that's probably why it sucks.

不。

No.

芬贾夫超棒的。

Fintjav's awesome.

你竟敢这么说他。

Don't you dare say that about him.

他很棒。

He's great.

他喜欢驱动链。

He likes drive chains.

是啊。

Yeah.

我们应该把驱动链列为下一个讨论重点。

We should that's the next on our list is drive chain.

众所周知我是驱动链的支持者，而Shinobi则是著名的反对者。

So, I'm notoriously pro drive chain, and Shinobi's notoriously anti.

Vlad，你持什么立场？

Vlad, where do you stand?

我受Layer two Labs赞助，但这不影响我的观点。

I'm sponsored by Layer two Labs, but it doesn't doesn't affect my opinion of it.

哦，那你的看法是？

Oh, what's your opinion of it?

从理念上说，我支持一种能让每个人都掌控自己密钥的比特币运作方式。

It's just that I'm a fan ideologically of stealing Bitcoin in a way that everyone can hold their own keys.

我也担心挖矿中心化问题，但这事说不准。

I'm also concerned about mining centralization, but you don't know.

我认为如果我们达成一个契约，有人能借此创建驱动链，这将是个检验自由市场是否接受这个概念的好方法。

I I think if we get a covenant and someone is able to create drive chains with that one, it's a good way to see if the free market is going to embrace this concept.

同时也是检验矿工是否会如预期那样行事的好机会。

And it's also a good way to see if the miners are going to behave in the way in which you expect them to.

确实。

Yeah.

我们真正需要的只是个能数到13000的东西。

We really just need something that can count to 13,000.

你真的反对数到13000吗？

Are you really opposed to counting to 13,000?

是的。

Yes.

我知道我是。

I know the I am.

这就是你反对的事情？

That's the thing you oppose?

好吧，我要用Bitmium来做这件事。

Well, I'm gonna do it in Bitmium.

所以

So

那实际上不会成为一条驱动链。

Well, that's not gonna be a drive chain really.

那就祝你玩得开心吧。

So have fun with that.

那么怎么

What about So how do

定义驱动链？

you define a drive chain?

它只是BIP 300吗？

Is it just BIP 300?

这是一个开放的排序器系统，开放的挂钩系统，任何人都可以发起挂钩提款，任何人都能推动系统向前发展——无论是通过区块排序、添加新交易还是其他机制。

It's an open sequencer, open peg system where anybody can essentially initiate withdrawals from the peg and anybody can actually progress the system forward in terms of like sequencing and adding new transactions in a block or whatever mechanism it takes.

但在这两种情况下，矿工都能形成事实上的垄断，因为他们决定区块内容，掌控区块内的提交权，因此他们实际上掌控着整个系统。

But it's in both of those cases, just de facto monopolizable by miners because they pick what goes into a block, they decide what gets committed to inside of a block, so they are just de facto in charge of that entire system.

我认为像BIP 300和301这样将其形式化的整个前提，简直是世界上最愚蠢的事情。

And I think the entire premise of formalizing that in something like BIP three hundred and three zero one is just the most retarded shit in the world.

这纯粹是某种神奇的想法，认为矿工由于某种难以解释的原因，神奇地比其他任何托管人更有能力和资格，因为这就是驱动链这类系统的现实情况。

It is just some magical thinking that for some inexplicable reason that miners are magically more capable and competent as custodians than any other custodians out there because that that's the reality of what drive chains and systems like that are.

矿工托管着你的资金。

Miners take custody of your money.

他们控制着你的资金。

They are in control of your money.

而你不是。

You are not.

这根本不是用户自主掌控私钥的扩容解决方案。

Like that is not a solution to scaling in which users control their own keys.

矿工控制着密钥。

Miners control the keys.

他们控制着资金。

They control the money.

那种认为矿工出于某种神秘原因就天然是最佳资金托管者的想法简直愚蠢透顶。

And like, the the idea that miners are just magically the most competent custodians for some mystical reason is fucking retarded.

但即使你不认为矿工是最适合持币的主体，也可以支持驱动链的激活。

But you don't have to you don't have to believe that miners are the best person to hold coins in order to support the activation of drive chains.

对我来说，这类似于假设比特币原本没有多重签名功能。

To me, it's similar to let's suppose that Bitcoin didn't have multisig.

它本不存在。

It wasn't a thing.

多重签名本不存在。

Multisig didn't exist.

我们原本只有单签名的比特币。

We only had single sig bitcoin.

于是有人提议：我想给比特币添加多重签名功能，这样我们就能实现类似液态网络的功能。

And so MPC so and someone proposed, I want to add multisig up, you know, up check multisig or up the check sig ad to Bitcoin because then we can have something like liquid.

我会支持为比特币添加这个功能，这样想使用Liquid或类似侧链的人就能实现。

I would support adding that feature to Bitcoin so that people who want to use liquid or similar side chains could do so.

我认为我们在驱动链问题上也处于相同处境。

And I think we're in the same position with drive chain.

这并不意味着我认为这是扩展比特币的最佳方式。

It doesn't mean that I think that's the best way to scale Bitcoin.

只是说明有些人想要这么做。

It just means some people wanna do it.

我认识其中一些人。

I know some of them.

我在网上和他们交流过。

I've talked to them online.

Paul Stork就是其中之一。

Paul Stork is one of them.

他想使用这个功能，如果只需要数到13000的话，我不会阻拦他。

He wants to use it, and I'm not I'm not gonna stand in his way if all it takes is counting to 13,000.

那么，想办法在实施过程中避免产生大量MEV机会，这些机会会给已经危险地中心化的挖矿生态系统带来更大的中心化压力。

Well, figure out a way to do that in a way that does not create massive MEV opportunities that presents a huge centralization pressure on the mining ecosystem, which is already dangerously centralized at this point.

说实话，去他妈的Paul。

Like Paul, I like, just frankly fuck Paul.

他实际上从未从理性角度解释过这个问题。

Like, he has not actually in an intellectually explain about the men.

我只是想指出这个观点。

Well, I'm trying to point out the idea.

Paul从未真正实质性地回应或解决驱动链带来的MEV问题。

Like Paul has never actually substantially like responded to debunked or just addressed the concerns of MEV that drive chains open up.

他只是绕来绕去地诡辩，最后直接断言这个问题不存在。

He just rambles on in circles, equivocating and just straw manning until he just asserts at the end of it, this problem isn't real.

用这种方式来讨论比特币提案变更的严重缺陷和问题，简直是胡扯。

That that's a bullshit way to address serious concerns of downsides and problems of a proposed change to Bitcoin.

除了保罗之外，还有其他人支持驱动链并讨论这些问题的解决方案。

There are other people besides Paul who support drive chains and talk about solutions for some of these issues.

最近，我

Recently, I

正在阅读Matt Carollo的一篇题为《别再叫它MEV》的文章，他在文中讨论了如何建立一个不会引入他所谓的'mevil'或邪恶MEV（可提取小额价值）的侧链。

was reading a post by Matt Carollo called Stop Calling It MEV, in which he discusses how you can have a side chain that doesn't introduce what he calls mevil or evil mev, minor extractable value.

他的部分解决方案是让侧链上的交易排序必须随机进行，随机性的密钥来自最后三个比特币区块，使用它们的区块哈希作为——我想他称之为密钥，然后你用它作为一个非常大的数字，必须通过调制这个随机数来排序交易。

And part of his solution is to make it so that the ordering of transactions on the side chain has to be done randomly and the key for the randomness is taken from taking the last three Bitcoin blocks and using their block ashes as a as a I think he calls it a key, like then you you use it as a really large number and you have to order the transaction to modulate this random number.

是的，基于随机输入的确定性排序。

Yes, deterministically ordered based on the random input.

没错，这样做的话就能

Yeah, and if you do that then it makes it so

让矿工无法通过常规方式排序交易获利，他们唯一能获取额外价值的方式是牺牲比特币区块来实现。

that miners can't, they the only way that they can order transaction in a way that gives them additional value is by sacrificing Bitcoin blocks to do so.

这样就解决了问题。

And so that solves the problem.

有什么想法？

Thoughts?

从概念上讲这个方向是对的，但我不确定这是否

I think conceptually it's moving in the right direction, but I'm not sure it's

具有可行性，因为当你观察这类系统时，它就像锚定机制和排序器模型的组合——即系统状态如何更新。

practical to do that because it's like when you look at systems like this, it's the peg and then the sequencer model of like how the state of the system is updated.

要实现这种方案，你必须以某种方式将系统的这两个部分交织在一起，使它们不再独立。

And to do something like that, you have to intertwine those two parts of the system in a way where like they're not independent.

因为如果锚定机制独立于该系统运行，那么这条规则就他妈毫无意义。

Because if the PEG operates independently of that system, then like that rule doesn't fucking matter.

矿工完全可以无视规则，随心所欲地排序区块，归根结底他们掌控着锚定机制中的资金流向。

Like miners can just ignore it completely and order blocks however the fuck they want, and at the end of the day, they control the funds in the peg.

他们决定锚定机制中哪些资金能流出，哪些不能。

They control what comes out of the peg, what doesn't.

他们可以坐收这种机制带来的收益，然后直接对用户说'去你的吧，运行不遵守那愚蠢规则的软件吧，反正我们也不理这套'。

They can just collect the revenue that they're like earning in this scheme and essentially tell users, go fuck yourself, run software that doesn't run that stupid rule because we're ignoring it.

这种锚定机制必须真正具备强制执行排序和序列规则的能力。

Like that PEG mechanism has to actually be able to enforce those rules of ordering and sequencing in the operation of the PEG itself.

除非我们讨论的是具备这种特性的系统——而这显然不是驱动链——否则无法强制执行此类规则。

So unless we're talking a system that works like that, which is not drive chains, it's not possible to enforce a rule like that.

所以我认为Matt是对的，这种解决方案确实可行，但根本不适用于像驱动链这样将排序与锚定操作完全分离的体系？

So like, I think like Matt is right, like a solution like that would work, but that solution is not applicable or workable for something like drive chains that cleanly separates the sequencing and the peg operation?

我

I

认为理论上可以做到，前提是驱动链用户愿意信任矿工不会作恶——这样就没问题了。

think you could, I think you could do it if, if you, or yeah, if people, if the users of a drive chain trusted miners to not be dishonest, which then you're good.

这就是他们的信任假设。

That's just that's their trust assumption.

他们信任矿工不会作恶。

They're trusting minors to not be dishonest.

不使用该机制的人不会受影响。

Anyone not using it is unaffected.

但当涉及MEV之类的情况时，这种说法就不成立了。

Well, that's not true when you're talking things like MEV.

如果他们作恶呢？你又开始...但重申一次，这对驱动链不可行。

What if they are dishonest, you start the But again, it that's not workable for drive chains.

Matt提议适用的系统类型，根本就不是驱动链。

You, like, the type of system where you can do, like, Matt's proposal is not drive chains.

这是一种完全不同的锚定方式，锚定机制本身实际上可以强制执行你所锚定系统的规则。

That is a completely different type of peg, where the peg itself actually can enforce the rules of the system that you are pegging into.

驱动链不是这样运作的。

That's not how drive chains work.

Matt确实是在支持基于BitVM的侧链而非驱动链的背景下提出这个建议的。

To be Matt did suggest this in the context of enabling BitVM based side chains and not drive chains.

所以，是的，感谢你给我提供了更多思考素材，也谢谢你肯定驱动链在概念上正朝着正确方向发展。

So, yeah, you for giving me additional food to think, food for thought, and thank you for saying that things are conceptually going in the right direction with drive chains.

很高兴听到这个。

So glad to hear that.

嗯，我有不同看法。

Well, I'd argue.

是啊。

Yeah.

听着，支持者。

Listen, supporter.

我从Paul Stortz那里读到这个。

I to read this from Paul Stortz.

他说，Blockstream是在走下坡路吗？

He said, is Blockstream going downstream?

RGB让你感到沮丧和消沉了吗？

Has RGB getting you down and brown?

听完Peter McRitard的长篇大论后，何不换个心情体验些别的？

After a long day of listening to Peter McRitard, why not feel something for a change?

感受生命活力。

Feel alive.

加入Layer Two Labs，让每个人都感到悲伤、沮丧和愤怒。

Join Layer two Labs and make everyone feel sad and frustrated and angry.

我们的下一个仪式将在凌晨3点的古老森林里举行。

Our next ritual is at 3AM in the ancient forest.

到时见。

See you there.

我是保罗·斯托尔斯，我认可这条消息。

I'm Paul Storrs, and I approve this message.

还是说我不认可呢？

Or do I?

好吧保罗，你需要学着点，但你们公司没一个人会玩梗。

Okay, Paul, you need to learn to me, but like nobody nobody at your company can meme for shit.

你们的梗烂透了。

Your memes suck.

要么是对别人梗的拙劣模仿，要么就是不知所云的胡言乱语。

They're just weird imitations of other people's memes or just incomprehensible nonsense.

他倒是把每个梗都念出来了。

He does pronounce one every meme.

谢谢你，保罗·斯托克，每天坚持为干燥链条发布支持梗图。

Thank you, Paul Stork, for putting out memes every day in favor of dry chain.

你绝对在转移话题，我是说，你在持续推进这件事，我真的很高兴看到这样。

You're definitely moving the goalposts or I mean, moving the moving the ball down the court, and I'm really glad to see that.

所以请继续保持，特别感谢严肃猫制作这些梗图。

So keep it up, and thank you specifically to Serious Cat for making those memes.

我们名单上的下一个获奖者是核心闪电。

The next winner on our list is Core Lightning.

所以

So

哦，说到核心闪电，保罗·斯托茨曾经给我提议，要给一家叫'海上闪电消失'的假公司做个假广告。

Oh, speaking of Core Lightning, Paul Stortz once pitched me the idea to make a fake ad for a fake company called Sea Lightning Gone.

好的。

Okay.

我不明白。

I don't get it.

看到闪电了吗？

See lightning?

看到闪电了吗？

See lightning?

看到闪电消失了吗？

See lightning gone?

就像看到斑点跑那样？

Like see spot run?

是啊，我感觉。

Yeah, I'm like.

我没听懂这个笑话。

I don't understand the joke.

看吧，他们不会玩梗。

See, they can't meme.

就像，

Like,

就像，看到闪电消失了吗？

Like, see lightning gone?

你看到闪电消失了吗？

You see lightning gone?

看到闪电了吗？

See lightning?

我猜你说'看'这个词时指的是s e e。

I assume that the word see is s e e when you're saying it.

确实。

Exactly.

那就是我不知道'see lightning gone'听起来应该像什么，它应该像某种声音，但我不知道

That's I don't know what see lightning gone sounds like it's supposed to sound like something, and I don't know

它应该是什么声音。

what it's supposed to sound like.

就像某种杀虫剂之类的。

Like one of these bug sprays or whatever.

我从没见过杀虫剂上写着'see something gone'。

I've never seen a bug spray that said see something gone.

不过好吧。

But okay.

但话说回来

But anyway

学学怎么玩梗吧，保罗。

Learn to meme, Paul.

那甚至不算是个梗。

That's not even a meme.

那本来是个笑话。

That's supposed to be a joke.

是个双关语。

It's a pun.

这和玩梗不一样。

That's different from memeing.

核心（Core）才是我们该讨论的话题。

Core is what we're supposed to be talking about.

到底有什么...我不...我能说说...我能说说为什么Core Lightning很烂吗？

What's the what's so I don't I I can tell about can I tell why Core Lightning sucks?

好的，Corelightning使用簿记员插件来记录交易历史，当你将Corelightning连接到Zeus钱包时，我认为你必须安装那个插件，如果不安装，每次尝试加载交易历史列表时都会导致手机崩溃。

Okay, so Corelightning is uses the bookkeeper plugin in order to have a history of transactions and Zeus Wallet, when you connect Corelightning to Zeus Wallet, I think you have to like have that plugin installed and if you don't, you it won't it'll crash your phone every time you try and load the, every time you load your your history of transactions, transaction history list.

所以修复这个问题吧，Core Lightning。

So fix that, Core Lightning.

这太糟糕了，我必须安装特定插件并让其API对钱包开放，才能查看交易历史。

It freaking sucks that I can't review the history of my transactions unless I install a certain plugin and then have that expose its API to my wallet.

这太差劲了。

That sucks.

你为什么不利用那些基于他们优秀插件架构开发的精美插件呢？

Why don't why don't you like making use of the beautiful plugins that that are built on their awesome plugin architecture?

那是其中一个

That's one that's

最顶尖的功能之一。

one of the top ones.

我认为这是他们优秀插件架构中最顶尖的功能。

I think it's the top one in their awesome plugin architecture.

这怎么就让他们差劲了？

How does that make them suck?

我不想为了获取交易历史而必须安装插件。

I don't wanna have to install a plugin to get transaction history.

这应该是无需插件就能实现的功能。

That should be something I don't need a plugin.

基本功能。

Basic thing.

如果我安装了插件并开放了这个API，

And if I do install it and then expose this API,

谁知道它明天会不会改变，然后就不再兼容我的钱包了。

who knows if it's gonna change tomorrow and then it won't work with my wallet anymore.

嗯，显然，像核心功能这种东西，他们不可能一夜之间就彻底改变。

Well, obviously, something that core, like, they're not just gonna flip it overnight.

他们通常做得还不错。

They're usually pretty good.

但不是这样。

But no.

我不这么认为。

I don't think they are.

问题就在这里。

That's the thing.

我认为他们钱包里的基础功能，比如支付插件，这些会在一夜之间变得完全不同。

I believe basic things in their wallet, like even the pay plugin, those change overnight to something completely different.

而且现在API也不一样了。

And the API is different now.

嗯，你习惯了旧版本的插件。

Well, you used to the older version of the plugin.

这就是插件系统的美妙之处。

It's the beauty of a plugin system.

你可以接入任何你想要的东西。

You can plug in whatever you want.

是啊，如果你愿意维护的话可以保留旧版，但如果他们因为漏洞或其他原因改了，你就不得不跟进最新版本，并重新调整你的软件来适配。

Yeah, you can keep you if you're willing to maintain it, but what if they change it because there's bugs or whatever and then you don't you have to go with whatever the latest one is and retool your software to work with it.

那这就是个流程问题了。

It's a process then.

你应该更新软件来适配修复后的版本。

Should be updating your software to work because a bug got fixed.

我真高兴现在轮到我来反对这个软件，而他成了支持的一方

I'm so glad that now I'm the one who's opposed to the software and he's the

一个为它辩护的人。

one defending it.

就像是，那完全相反

Like, that's been the opposite of that

这期播客大部分时间都在说这个。

for most of this podcast.

Core Lightning糟糕的另一个原因是，我们清单上的下一个是比特币。

Another reason why Core Lightning sucks is The next on our list is Bitcoin.

比特币的roll up很糟糕。

Bitcoin roll ups suck.

我们来谈谈原因，因为我实在想不出

And let's talk about why because I couldn't think

Core Lightning还有什么其他问题。

of anything else with core lightning.

整个roll up的概念就是我把交易摘要数据塞回主链，这样用户可以利用这些数据随时单方面退出系统。

Well, the the the whole concept of a roll up is I shove my transaction summary data back on the main chain so that users can make use of that to exit the system unilaterally whenever they want.

同意。

Agreed.

这很糟糕。

And that sucks.

虽然这种设计架构本身就很蠢。

And though like that that is a dumb enough like, design and architecture on its own.

我们要建个二层网络，却莫名其妙要不断往一层写东西，尽管我们本是在链下操作。

Like, we're gonna build a layer two where we constantly have to go back and write things to layer one for some reason even though we're doing stuff off chain.

这已经够蠢了。

Like, that's that's stupid enough.

但那些即将推出的比特币roll up甚至没有单边退出机制，用户根本无法不经运营者许可就退出roll up——而运营者是唯一能执行退出操作的人。

But, like, the the crop of coming Bitcoin roll ups that don't even have unilateral exit mechanisms, it is literally not possible for users to exit the roll up without the permission of an operator who is the only one who could actually do that.

所以这简直蠢了三倍。

So it is like three times as retarded.

那只是Alpen Labs的Citria项目，所有这些基于BPM的汇总方案，用户居然都无法退出。

It was just Citria, the Alpen Labs one, like all of these BPM based roll ups, like none of the users could exit.

所以把链下系统的数据写到区块链上，这操作简直蠢了三倍。

So it's like three times as retarded to be writing data on the blockchain for your off chain system.

而最初把这些数据上链的整个目的，本就是为了让用户能单方面退出。

And when the whole purpose of of writing that data on chain in the first place is so that users can unilaterally exit.

但你们基于Bitmium的比特币版本里，用户甚至不能单方面退出。

But in your Bitcoin version of it built on Bitmium, users can't even unilaterally exit.

那你他妈到底为啥还要把数据上链？

So, like, what the actual fuck are you even putting the data on chain?

关于桥接模型。

Of the bridge models.

无论是Citria团队、Alban Labs团队还是Bitlair团队提出的方案。

Being proposed by the Citria people or the Alban Labs people or the Bitlair people.

据我了解，除了Citria，其他基本都是发了个以太坊代币就叫人们购买，然后就没下文了。

It's my understanding that all of them have, except Citria, have just basically created an Ethereum token and they tell people buy this Ethereum token and then they don't actually that's all they do.

他们只会说'买这个以太坊代币吧'。

They're just like buy this Ethereum token.

说什么'最终会由Bitvm支持并能提现'，但现在不行，而且Bitvm都还没运作起来，太糟糕了。

Eventually, it'll be backed by Bitvm and you'll be able to withdraw but it's not and Bitvm doesn't even work yet so that sucks.

这个批评合理吗？

Is that a valid criticism?

对大部分项目确实如此，不过Alphen Labs倒是真的在做实际工程开发。

For most of them, but Alphen Labs is another one actually doing real engineering work.

他们不是那种只会发币忽悠人的团队。

They're not just like shelling a token or bullshit.

好的。

Okay.

另一个所以我更多我有

The another so I'm more I have

要问你，这和RGB有什么区别？

to ask you, how is this different from RGB?

因为那个也会在基础层上写入返回交易，然后你用RGB来转移那个代币。

Because that one will also write up return transactions on the base layer and then you transfer that token using RGB.

但他们，他们，不是做上返，而是把数据哈希后使用哈希值

But they, they, instead of doing an up return, they put the data, they hash the data and use the hash

来调整比特币上的公钥，这样你就不用在比特币上新增交易，而是利用你本来就要在比特币上进行的交易来完成。

to tweak a public key on Bitcoin so that you don't have to put any new transactions on Bitcoin, but rather do it in transaction you were already going to make on Bitcoin.

不过我觉得这种情况很少发生，人们最终还是会做小额比特币交易以便嵌入这些数据，这和用OP_RETURN一样糟糕。

Though I think that will rarely happen and people will end up just making Bitcoin transactions of small values so that they can embed this data, which is just as bad as using an op return.

但至少协议设计上不强制要求这样做。

But at least the protocol is designed to not require that.

所以你是说RGB比ZK rollups更好吗？

So are you saying that RGB is better than ZK rollups?

不，但我想我没这么说，我需要再想想。

No, but I guess I'm not saying that, I have to think more about it.

我觉得RGB的设计理念不错，它让你只在本来就要进行比特币交易时才把数据放上去，而且不占用额外空间。

I think that I like that RGB's design allows you to only put data on Bitcoin when you're already going to be making a Bitcoin transaction and make it so that it doesn't take up any extra space.

这很酷。

That's cool.

但我不认为，我还没和ZK技术做过比较。

But I don't think, I haven't compared that to ZK stuff.

我对ZK技术最大的顾虑是关于数据可用性层的认知问题。

My big problem with the ZK stuff is that is something that I learned about data availability layers.

你听说过数据可用层这个术语吗？

Have you ever heard the term data availability layer?

我采访过Ellie Sasson还是谁来着。

I did an interview with Ellie Sasson or something.

我不认识这个人。

I don't know who that is.

就是那个发明非零知识证明的人。

The creator of not snarks.

零知识证明。

Starks.

所以显然在

So apparently in the

以太坊世界里，他们提出了构建侧链的想法，这是个很棒的主意。

Ethereum world, they came up with this idea of building side chains, which is a great idea.

你们应该构建侧链。

You should build side chains.

然后有人就问：我们把数据放哪儿呢？

And then someone was like, where do we put the data?

最荒谬的是我们明明一直都有存放数据的地方——就是节点上。

And the friggin' nonsense of this is that we've always had a place to put the data which is on the nodes.

节点本来就是存储数据的。

Like the nodes host the data.

但在以太坊生态里，没人愿意运行节点。

But in the Ethereum world, nobody wants to run one.

他们都说：我才不要运行节点。

They're just like, I'm not gonna run a node.

连开发者自己都不想运行节点。

The developers don't even wanna run a node.

所以他们就说，好吧，我们把数据放在比特币区块链上，用Citria技术处理，再把这些数据通过其他rollup方案放到以太坊区块链上，因为反正那些人在运行节点，这简直让人抓狂。

So they're like, well, we're let's just put the data on Bitcoin's blockchain with the Citria stuff, and let's put that on Ethereum's blockchain with some of these other roll ups, because those people are running nodes, and it's just it is just maddening.

这就像是，用户不仅懒得运行他们想用来赌博的软件，连开发者都懒得运行这些软件。

It's like they they not only do the users not care enough to even run the software that they're trying to gamble on, but the developers don't even care enough to run this software.

那边根本没人运行节点。

No one's running a node over there.

这就是ZK技术让我恼火的地方——他们只是把数据往比特币上倒，因为他们不想运行节点。

So that's what riles me up about the ZK stuff is that they're just dumping data on Bitcoin because they don't want to run nodes.

老兄，这简直是个自相矛盾的悖论。

Dude, it's it's just such an oxymoron.

太荒谬了。

It's ridiculous.

本来脱离链下的全部意义就是不用占用区块空间，因为链上操作效率极低且完全不具备可扩展性。

Like, the whole point of going off chain is to not have to use block space because it is stupidly inefficient and stupidly unscalable.

而rollup的核心理念就是：嘿，我们脱离链下操作，但要把所有数据又塞回链上。

And the entire premise of roll ups is like, hey, let's go off chain except put all the data back on chain.

这图啥呢？

Like, why?

没错。

Right.

图啥？

Why?

我不知道。

I don't know.

我真不知道。

I don't know.

但我觉得应该不是所有数据都这样处理。

But I don't think it's all the data.

我认为这非常关键的一点是他们只放入足够的数据，让你能重构其余部分。

That's I think that's a pretty critical part of it is they only put enough data so that you can recreate the rest.

就像零知识证明技术允许你做到类似的事情。

Like the zero knowledge proof stuff allows you to do something along those lines.

从它在比特币上放入的数据比原本要少的角度来看，我认为这是一种改进。

And to the extent that it puts less data on Bitcoin than would have been there otherwise, that's an I think that's an improvement.

不过，是的。

But I yeah.

我觉得放在侧链上会更好，那里实际有人运行节点。

I think put it on put it on put it on a side chain where people are actually running the nodes, that would be better.

或者就作为用户自己保存，对，这是你的数据，你在运行节点，保存自己的数据，

Or just keep it like yourself as a user, like yeah, it's your data, you are running a node, keep your own data,

我想是的。

I think that's yeah.

我们讨论了Rollups、Core Lightning、DriveChain、Seed Sinai、Anastra、LND、Wasabi。

So we talked about Rollups, Core Lightning, DriveChain, Seed Sinai, Anastra, LND, Wasabi.

还有五个话题要讨论。

We have five things left to talk about.

Samurai、JoinMarket、BitVM、ZapLocker和CoinJoins。

Samurai, JoinMarket, BitVM, ZapLocker, and CoinJoins.

选一个。

Pick one.

呃，我想不行。

Well, I guess no.

不要CoinJoins，因为我们已经讨论过了，是的。

Not CoinJoins because that's just the same as we already took that's yeah.

从其他选项中选一个，除了CoinJoins。

Pick one of the other ones other than CoinJoints.

我们

Let's

吐槽BitLocker。

shit on BitLocker.

ZapLocker。

ZapLocker.

解放ZapLocker。

Free ZapLocker.

BitLocker。

BitLocker.

对。

Yeah.

它也很烂吗？

Does it also suck?

没错。

Yeah.

好吧。

Okay.

是的。

Yeah.

我不知道这个Locker是什么。

I don't know what the locker is.

ZapLocker是我创建的一个项目，旨在解决闪电网络上异步支付的问题。

ZapLocker was a project that I created in which I was trying to solve the problem of asynchronous payments on the Lightning Network.

当你在闪电网络上发起支付时，除非收款方上线并执行所谓的'确认撤销'操作——即确认新状态并撤销旧状态——否则交易不会完成。

So when you make a light when you make a payment on the Lightning Network, you it doesn't settle unless the recipient comes online and says he does this thing called act and revoke, where he's like, okay, I acknowledge the new state and I revoke the old state.

我不喜欢闪电网络的这一点，因为大多数时候别人给我转账时我都不在线。

And I don't like this about Lightning because most of the time, I'm not online when someone's gonna send me money.

大多数时候是因为我在Stacker News上写了些很棒的内容，或是在Noster上发表了精彩观点，有人为此给我打赏，但我的手机不在身边无法给他们发送发票。

Most of the time it's because I wrote something really awesome on Stacker News, or I wrote something really awesome on Noster and someone's zapping me for it, and my phone's not out for me to send them an invoice.

所以我无法上线处理并撤销新状态。

So I can't be online to back and revoke the new state.

于是我设计了这个叫ZapLocker的协议，它采用聚合发票机制——你向闪电网络服务提供商提供一组哈希值（你持有对应的原像），只需将这些哈希发送给服务器。

So I came up with this protocol called ZapLocker, which used huddle invoices, where you would give a server like a lightning a lightning service provider a bunch of hashes for that that where you have the pre images to them and you just send the hashes to the server.

当有人向你索要闪电网络发票时，实际是由这家闪电服务商使用你的某个哈希值生成发票，而他们并不持有资金托管权。

And whenever someone requests a lightning invoice from you, they actually get it from this lightning service provider who uses one of your hashes to create the lightning invoice and then they don't have custody of it.

当用户尝试支付时，服务器虽无法立即结算，但能标记为待处理付款并通知你：请上线并提供这笔支付的原像好吗？

When the user tries to pay that, the server cannot settle it, but they can at least say it's a pending payment and they can notify you, can you please come online and give us the pre image to this payment?

当然，你只在他们付款后才会这么做。

Which of course you only do if they give you the money.

对方先给我转账，我再提供原像，之后他们就能完成支付结算。

Have You to give me the money, then I give you the pre image and then they settle the payment.

这个方案确实可行，它巧妙实现了技术上非完全异步的支付——虽然存在延迟，但你有充足时间上线收款，延迟期甚至可长达三天。

And that works, like it's cool and it allows you to do technically not asynchronous payments, but like there's a delay where you can get online and come and collect them and it can be pretty long, can be like three days.

本来运作良好，但突然所有通道都出现了问题——发送方与其通道对手方的通道被强制关闭了。

It kind of worked, except that all of a sudden, all these channels, there were people, the send, the sender's channels to their channel counterparties were getting forced closed.

后来发现，每当有人发送ZapLocker支付后通道就被强制关闭，是因为发送方付款后立即关闭了手机。

And it turned out why they were getting forced closed whenever someone sent us AppLocker payment, is because after sending the payment, the sender would turn off their phone.

他们用的都是手机钱包。

They were all using phone wallets.

付款后就直接关机。

They would turn them off.

反向操作时同样会出现这个问题。

And the same problem happens in reverse.

如果发送方在你发送撤销请求时手机离线，你就会被迫与他们强制关闭通道。

If the sender's phone is offline, when you send the act and revoke, then you force close the general with them.

就像你被迫从这个方向关闭，又从那个方向被迫关闭，所有人都被强制关闭了。

So it's like you're getting forced closed this way, you're getting forced closed that way, and everyone was getting forced closed.

于是，大家开始集体阻止向ZapLocker付款。

So, everybody started blocking payments to ZapLocker.

Mutiny，好吧，我是说所有人。

Mutiny, well, I say everyone.

我想Mutiny Wallet这么做了，我怀疑FedEx Wallet可能也这么做了。

I think Mutiny Wallet did and I suspect FedEx Wallet might have.

然后，事情就这样了。

And, that was that.

这就是Zap Blocker的结局，也是它糟糕的原因。

So, that was Zap Blocker and that's why it sucked.

有什么要说的吗？

Any comments?

我觉得他根本没怎么仔细考虑过这个问题。

I don't think he thought that one through much at all.

我思考这个问题很久了。

I thought about it for so long.

这个项目酝酿了差不多三年。

It was like three years in the making.

最后当我终于上线时，立刻就遭到了封杀。

And then I finally launched it and it was just like insta block.

嘿Anon，你听说过Stark的可扩展透明知识论证协议吗？

Hey Anon, have you heard of Stark's Scalable Transparent Argument of Knowledge?

这是一种利用零知识证明使交易更具扩展性和隐私性的协议。

It's a protocol that uses zero knowledge proofs to make transactions more scalable and private.

目前这项技术只在以太坊上实现，但如果比特币激活OpCAT，我们也能用上Starks技术了。

Currently this tech exists only on Ethereum but if Bitcoin activates OpCAT we're going to get Starks too.

想了解更多关于斯塔克斯的信息，可以收听比特币过渡播客第十五季第36期，嘉宾是艾莉·本·萨松。

Learn more about Starks by listening to season fifteen episode 36 of the Bitcoin Tickover podcast with Ellie Ben Sasson.

也请考虑支持UpCat。

Also consider supporting UpCat.

在平行肉丸公司这里，我本该介绍我的刺猬协议，这就像是一个升级版，是处理这类事务的更好方法。

So here at Parallel Meatballis, I'm supposed to be presenting my hedgehog protocol, which is like an upgrade and a better way to do this stuff.

所以请持续关注。

So tune in for that.

这其实是个好主意。

Is actually a good idea.

是只蓝色刺猬吗？

Is it a blue hedgehog?

我不能...我不...

I can't I don't

不想被起诉。

want to get sued.

所以关于刺猬的颜色我还是先不表态。

So I'm gonna defer on the color of the hedgehog.

它速度快吗？

Is it fast?

半快。

Semi fast.

最快的东西...算了。

The fastest thing never mind.

是半快。

It's Semi fast.

所以这是个阻碍。

So that's a blocker.

我们聊过

We talked

关于那个。

about that one.

我们还剩BitVM、Samurai和Joy Market。

We have BitVM, Samurai, and Joy Market left.

好吧。

Alright.

我们来吐槽一下Samurai吧。

Let's let's shit on Samurai.

我觉得

I guess a

一点点。

little bit.

好的。

Alright.

所以你是武士，忍者。

So you're a Samurai, Shinobi.

而samurai就是武士。

And samurai's a samurai.

首先他们把名字拼错了。

They spelled it wrong, first of all.

这是最糟糕的。

That's the worst thing.

是啊。

Yeah.

他们是故意的。

They did that on purpose.

他们把‘samurai’拼写成‘o u’了？

They spelled samurai with o u?

是啊。

Yeah.

哦，那是法语的拼写方式吗？

Oh, is that the French way to spell samurai?

嗯哼。

Mhmm.

哦，那就算了。

Oh, never mind then.

没关系。

That's fine.

我不介意。

I don't mind that.

我差点就要说他们又不是法国人。

I was about to get And they're not French.

他们是美国人，不过其中一个在巴黎住过一阵子。

They're American, but one of them lived in Paris for a while.

这就完全说得通了。

That's all the good reason.

好吧。

Okay.

我对‘spammer spammer eye’这个拼写很恼火。

I'm mad at the spelled spammer spammer eye.

武士。

Samurai.

你为什么对他们生气？

Why are you mad at them?

完全不愿意改进，或者偏离他们做出的架构选择。

Just a complete unwillingness to improve or, like, deviate from architecture choices that they made.

就像

Like Is

是真的吗？你只能和其他四个人一起进行硬币合并

it true that you could only you could only do a coin join with four other people

在Samurai里？

in Samurai?

直到最近才改变，是的。

Until very recently, yes.

他们在去年某个时候添加了一个叫浪涌周期的功能。

They added a feature called surge cycles sometime in the last year.

这个功能的核心理念是动态允许超过...好吧，

And the whole idea of that was to dynamically allow more than Okay,

这一点他们倒不算差。

they don't suck for that.

那他们差在哪里？

What else do they suck for?

所以

So

我在几年前就提出过方案，让即使不使用自己Dojo实例的轻钱包用户也不会向服务器泄露余额数据。

I proposed like years ago at this point, a way for even LightWallet users who don't run their own Dojo instance to not leak balance data to the the server.

但他们完全...崩溃了，看完后大发雷霆，而不是采纳这个能实质提升用户隐私和安全的建议。

And, like, they just completely, like, melted down, read and got mad when I proposed this to them instead of doing something that could actually have, like, materially improved the privacy and safety of their users.

我觉得这真的很糟糕。

And I think that's kind of fucked up.

当你真正观察他们钱包的交易流程时，一旦开始混币，其实根本不需要查询任何关于那些币的余额信息，因为你在签署和构建实际混币交易时就已经知道哪个UTXO或输出是你的，直接兑现保存就行。

Like they, like, when you really look at the flow of, like, how you transact with their wallet, once you start mixing, there is no need at any point really to ever query anything about your balance for those coins because you are making a coin joint transaction while you are signing and constructing the transaction that actually, you know, mixes those coins, you know, which UTXO or output in that transaction is yours, just cash it and save it.

甚至当你开始花费混币后的资金时，可以直接兑现并保存。

And even when you start to spend outside of the coin joins later, like just cash it and save it.

我提议采用一种隔离路径的方案，不是发送整个主X公钥到后端，而是发送子派生路径，为混币建立平行通道，这样轻量级用户也永远不会将信息发送到他们的后端服务器。

And I I propose the idea of like having an isolated, like pathway instead of like sending the whole master X pub to their back end, you could send a sub derivation and have this parallel one for your mixed coins that even lite users never send to their back end server.