CD188：CORALLO——盗取中本聪的聪

所以，这是最大的担忧。

That's So the that's the biggest concern.

工作量证明方面还有一些次要的担忧，但我们暂时不深入讨论。

There's some tail concerns around proof of work, but we won't get into that right now.

但确实，如果量子计算机被建造出来——我知道这在可能性上存在很多分歧，但我们暂且不谈这个——

But yeah, a quantum computer, if one is built in, and I know there's a lot of disagreement on how likely this is, but we'll set that aside.

就像未来可能会出现某人解决了所有工程难题，建造出拥有足够量子比特且能运行足够长时间的量子计算机，从而能够逆向推导出私钥——也就是逆向公钥。

Like in the future, there may become someone who figures out how to build all the engineering challenges to build a quantum computer that can, has enough qubits and can run for long enough that it can reverse private, reverse public key.

所以它能够计算它在链上或内存池中看到的公钥对应的私钥。

So it can calculate the private key for a public key that it sees either on chain or in the mempool.

然后它当然可以拿走这些资金。

And then it can of course take the money.

具体来说，所有旧地址类型，旧地址类型默认会暴露公钥。

And then specifically all the older address types, the older address type has a public key that's exposed by default.

而较新的地址类型则额外进行了哈希处理。

The newer ones are then additionally hashed.

所以那些是不脆弱的。

So those aren't vulnerable.

对。

Right.

是那些旧的地址才有风险。

It's the older ones that are vulnerable.

对。

Right.

首先。

First.

是的。

Yes.

还有Taproot。

Plus Taproot.

Taproot的设计之一是使用公钥，通过将公钥作为输出的明确部分来提高匿名性。

One of the designs of Taproot was using public keys to improve anonymity set by making the public key an explicit part of the output.

所以在Taproot的情况下，量子计算机也可以计算出它的私钥。

And so in the Taproot case, a quantum computer can also calculate the private key for it.

所以最旧的地址和最新的地址。

So the oldest address and the newest addresses.

是的。

Yes.

还有大多数钱包。

And also most wallets.

大多数钱包会经常重复使用地址。

Most wallets reuse addresses regularly.

有些钱包则完全重复使用地址。

Some wallets exclusively reuse addresses.

因为当你花费时，你会暴露你的公钥。

Because when you spend, you're exposing your public key.

无论输出类型如何，只要你花费，就会暴露公钥。

When you spend even no matter no matter the output type, when you spend, you expose the public key.

所以如果你重复使用地址，

So if you reuse addresses,

无论怎么使用都没关系。

it doesn't matter how using.

关键是重复使用了你曾经花销过的地址。

It's reusing an address that you've spent from.

对吧？

Right?

对。

Right.

对。

Right.

抱歉。

Sorry.

是的。

Yes.

所以当你，嗯。

So when you yeah.

一旦你从该地址支出，公钥就会暴露，量子计算机仍可利用它窃取发送到该地址的未来资金。

Once you've spent from it, the public key is now exposed, and then the quantum computer could still use it to steal your future funds to that address.

事实上，很大一部分钱包和地址无论输出类型如何，其公钥都已暴露。

And the reality is a very large portion of wallets and addresses have their public key exposed irrespective of the output type.

这只是一个令人遗憾的现实，即由于地址复用。

It's just, it's a Because sad reality of address But because of address reuse.

复用。

Reuse.

这些钱包本不该被使用，但人们就是喜欢它们。

The sad reality in these wallets shouldn't be used, but people like them.

我的意思是，你去应用商店搜索，第一个出现的比特币钱包就是信任钱包。

I mean, you know, you go on the App Store and the first result for a Bitcoin wallet is trust wallet.

是的。

Yeah.

它只给你一个地址。

And it only gives you one address.

默认情况下。

By default.

它们也只重复使用地址。

It's also only they exclusively reuse address.

它们只提供一个地址。

They only ever give you one address.

这是因为山寨币默认重复使用账户。

It's because the shitcoin or the shitcoins by default reuse accounts.

对吧？

Right?

比特币用户可以把这理解为地址。

Which Bitcoiners can think of as addresses.

比如，如果你在使用Solana，你总是重复使用同一个地址。

Like, if you're using Solana, you're always reusing the same address.

所以从用户体验的角度来看，如果你是从EtherSwana过来的，你习惯于重复使用地址。

So UX wise, if you're coming in from EtherSwana, you're used to reusing addresses.

而且，我是不是正确地认为，仅从这一点来看，它们比比特币更脆弱？

And would I, am I correct that from that point alone, they're more vulnerable than Bitcoin?

不是吗？

No?

因为它们默认就一直在重复使用地址？

Cause they're just by default constantly reusing addresses?

确实是这样。

They are.

它们面临更高的风险。

They have a higher concern.

显然，它们的API更难重构。

Obviously their APIs are harder to redo.

尽管如此，它们当然更中心化。

That said, of course, they're more centralized.

通常频繁更换地址，这样可以更快地移动，也更迅速一些。

Generally move things often, so they can move a little quicker and a bit quicker.

好的。

Okay.

所以这才是主要的担忧。

So that's the main concern.

对吧？

Right?

这就是担忧所在。

So that's the concern.

担忧在于量子计算机一旦出现，就会窃取一半的比特币。

The concern is a quantum computer exists and then it steals half of all the Bitcoin.

但真的会那么多吗？

Well, wouldn't it be that much?

差不多了。

It's pretty close.

当你考虑地址重用时，这个比例高得惊人。

When you consider the address reuse, it's pretty damn high.

我认为这是没有使用地址的情况。

I think it's without address to use.

大约有180万枚比特币，存在于没有重用的易受攻击的地址类型中。

It's like 1,800,000.0 Bitcoin and vulnerable address types without reuse.

然后有人提到，按数量而非余额计算，约有40%的地址拥有资金且公钥已暴露。

And then somebody had said it's like 40% of addresses, not by balance, but by count that have money have the public key exposed.

所以这全部是

So it's all

关于比特币的。

about Bitcoin.

我的意思是，我觉得不管怎样

Mean, I think Whatever

不管这个数字是多少，

the number is,

是为了让它

it's To make it

数百万比特币。

multi million Bitcoin.

让对话更有成效。

Make it a more productive conversation.

我的意思是，在教育层面，地址重用的风险在于你可能面临量子计算机的威胁，这可能会促使人们减少地址重用，因为很多地址重用是企业行为，比如信任钱包在维护，他们可以升级到HD钱包，或者像Coinbase这样的所有交易所，很多交易所都在重用地址。

I mean, I think on the education side, the risk of address reuse being that you could be vulnerable to a quantum computer could end up reducing address reuse specifically because a lot of it is is like corporate based, Whether it's a trust wallet maintaining a, know, they could update to HD wallets or like Coinbase and all these exchanges, like a ton of exchanges are reusing addresses.

所以我觉得这样说还挺有成效的，好吧。

So I think it's think it's I kind of productive to say, okay.

我们可以做到，而且如果真存在能干这种事的量子计算机，我认为这不会一夜之间发生。

We can get and also, if a quantum computer exists that can do this shit, I don't think it's gonna happen overnight.

所以我觉得，不。

So I think, like No.

它可能可以转移这些人。

It's could probably move those people.

第二部分是，我听到一个担忧：你没有重复使用地址。

And then the second part is the second part is there's a concern that I've heard, which is, okay, you're not using reusing addresses.

你没有易受攻击的地址类型。

You don't have a vulnerable address type.

所以你没有使用Taproot或旧版地址，对吧？

So you're not using Taproot or legacy, right?

你实际上使用的是哈希过的支付公钥哈希，比如三地址，或者任何SegWit地址、bc1地址，或者原生SegWit或包装SegWit地址。

You're actually, you're using a hashed, a paid public key hash, like a three address or whatever SegWit address or BC one or BC one or whatever native SegWit or wrap SegWit.

但当你花费时，你的公钥会暴露在内存池中。

But when you spend your public key is exposed in mempool.

因此，你可能会遭受主动攻击。

And as a result, you could have an active attack.

我认为这一点现在也可以从讨论中排除了。

I think that's also probably can just be thrown out of the discussion for now.

因为这种攻击要等到更晚的时候才会发生，远在任何针对已暴露地址的量子突破之后——比如，那种能在三十或四十分钟内完成量子突破的飞跃，其技术先进程度必须远超那种只是对着一个已暴露地址耗上一年的普通计算。

Because that would happen way later from any kind of break on already exposed like the idea that you have a quantum leap that could do it in like, thirty minutes or forty minutes, is like, I just got to be so much more advanced than one that is just like sitting there grinding for like a year or something on an already an exposed address.

我觉得这还不清楚。

I think that's unclear.

这在一定程度上取决于量子计算机的类型。

It depends a little bit on the type of quantum computer.

我的意思是，量子计算机的一个挑战是它们无法长时间保持相干性。

I mean, one of the challenges with a quantum computer is that they don't maintain coherence for very long.

所以基本上你的计算机寿命很短，可能第一个达到密码学相关水平的量子计算机正是因为实际中唯一可行的方式是它必须运行得非常快——因为相干性会过快地崩溃。

So basically your computer is short lived and it might be the case that the first quantum computer to reach cryptographic relevance is one that moves pretty quick just because of, in practice, the only way to make it work is for it to move quick because it, the coherence falls apart too fast.

所以我觉得这还不清楚。

So I think that's unclear.

这当然取决于具体情况，但我同意，量子讨论中的一个问题在于，你很快就会陷入各种可能的未来情景：如果它突然发生、缓慢发生，或者X、Y、Z等情况会怎样。

It certainly depends, but I do agree that like, you know, for part of the problem with the quantum discussion is you very quickly get into like all of these potential future scenarios and what happens if it happens suddenly versus slowly versus, you know, X, Y, Z.

而这种讨论变得非常无用，因为你面对的是所有这些情景，它们

And it becomes a very useless discussion because you have all of these scenarios that is

你完全可以缩小问题范围。

not You can so narrow the problem set.

我觉得，有成效的做法是缩小问题范围。

It's like, I feel like the productive way is to narrow the problem set.

所以我认为，大多数人同意的一点是，存在相当程度的共识。

So then I think I think the thing that people agree with, most people agree with, I think there's decent consensus.

我认为，从共识角度来看，最容易实施的措施之一是某种抗量子的地址类型或钱包结构。

And I think it'd be probably one of the easier things to implement just from a consensus point of view is some kind of quantum resistant address type or wallet structure.

我觉得有一些提案可以通过现有的taproot树来实现。

Think there's some proposals that you could do it through the existing taproot trees.

对吧？

Right?

所以你可以直接拥有一个抗量子的taproot地址，然后人们可以选择是否迁移到这种地址。

So like you could just have a taproot address that is quantum resistant and then people could opt into choosing to move to that if they want to.

这样对吗？

Is that correct?

这正好引出了我想提出的第二点，我认为有必要设定一些背景。

So that, that kind of gets into my second point that I want to raise that I think is important to set context.

也就是说，我们可用的具体选项取决于我们假设未来的比特币社区会冻结还是销毁。

And that is that the exact, the options available to us depend on whether we assume a future Bitcoin community freezes or burns.

我正在尝试缩小问题范围，因为我认为这实际上非常有争议。

Quite I'm trying to narrow the problem set here because I think that's actually really controversial.

所以我们应该争论那个还是说

So should we argue about Or that Or is

你看问题在于，首先我们无法决定这一点。

see the problem so I think the so first of all, we can't decide that.

对吧？

Right?

就像我们现在无法决定，当然不能。

Like we can't decide here and now today whether Of course not.

知道吗，十年后当量子计算机出现时，或者如果十年后量子计算机即将问世，比特币社区会说，好吧，实际上那台量子计算机会拿走102万或随便多少比特币，它们会抛售到市场上，导致价格崩盘，你知道，我不想要那种比特币。

Know, in in ten years when there's a quantum computer on the horizon, or if in ten years there's a quantum computer on the horizon, does the Bitcoin community say, okay, actually that quantum computer is gonna take $1.02, three, whatever million Bitcoin, they're gonna dump it on the market and they're gonna wreck the price and this, you know, I don't want that Bitcoin.

我会，我们会冻结那些币。

I'm gonna, we're gonna freeze those coins.

但问题是，我们确实需要预测这一点，因为可供我们选择的方案取决于此。

But the problem is we do kind of have to predict that because what's available to us depends on that.

因此，如果我们假设未来的比特币社区会冻结或销毁这些币，那么我们就可以像你描述的那样简单地处理。

So if we assume that a future Bitcoin community will freeze, burn these coins, then we can do it simply the way you described.

因此，我们添加一个新的TapLeaf。

So we, we add a new TapLeaf.

我们向TapScript添加一些操作码。

So we add some op codes to TapScript.

简单地说，就是一个基于哈希的签名。

And simple, just a hash based signature.

我们今天就可以做到这一点。

We can do this today.

而且这可以完全透明。

And it can be entirely transparent.

因此，今天的钱包，或者经过相应软件设计的钱包，可以开始为它们所有的Taproot输出和Taproot地址添加这个TapLeaf。

So wallets today, or, you know, with the software designed, could start adding this TapLeaf to all of their Taproot outputs and to their Taproot addresses.

这只是他们从你现有的种子短语衍生出来的一个新东西。

It's just a new thing that they derive from your, from your existing seed phrase.

所以没有新的衍生过程。

So there's no new derivation.

没有新的钱包之类的。

There's no new wallet, whatever.

只是一个不同的地址。

Just a different address.

相同的地址格式。

Same address format.

什么都不需要改变。

Nothing has to change.

每个人都已经支持它，或者说所有支持Taproot的人都已经支持它了。

Everybody already supports it or everybody who supports Taproot already supports it.

然后在未来，如果量子计算机成为威胁且不安全的支出路径被禁用，届时钱包将切换至仅使用这个备份。

And then in the future, if and when a quantum computer becomes a risk and the insecure spend paths are disabled, at that point, the wallets switch to just using this backup.

他们已经有了。

And they already have it.

它已经就位了。

It's already in place.

他们所有的币都已经由它保护了。

All of their coins are already secured by it.

大家都很满意。

Everybody's happy.

我明白你的意思。

See what you're saying.

但如果你不冻结，就可以通过不安全的路径花费。

But if you don't freeze, then you could just spend via the insecure path.

如果你不冻结，他们就会把钱拿走。

If you don't freeze, they can take the money.

所以如果你不冻结，今天的钱包就必须以某种方式开始使用这种后量子方案，而这种方案相对更昂贵。

So if you don't freeze, wallets today have to start using this in some scheme, some actual post quantum scheme, which is relatively more expensive.

对吧？

Right?

这将是一个新地址。

It's gonna be a new address.

这将是一种新的地址类型，一种新的输出类型。

It's gonna be a new address type, it's gonna be a new output type.

更高的费用，更多的数据。

Higher fees, more data.

交易可能是无状态的，这又是一个全新的难题，因为数据可能只有大约10倍。

The transactions are, I mean, potentially stateless, which is a whole other quagmire is, you can have the data only be something like 10 X.

你的交易费用只会因为更大的签名而增加。

Your transaction fees only be, thanks bigger signatures.

我不知道，欺诈行为可能导致交易规模扩大五倍左右，交易更大、费用更高。

I don't know, fraud a number of five X or something, bigger transactions and higher fees.

但交易是无状态的。

But then the transactions are stateless.

所以你不能重复使用地址，或者你的私钥泄露给经典计算机，甚至不是量子计算机。

So then you can't reuse addresses or your private key leaks to classical computer, not even a quantum computer.

所以你根本就不能用这种地址类型重复使用地址。

So you literally just cannot reuse addresses with that type of address type.

对。

Right.

或者你需要支付高得多的费用。

Or you pay a much higher fee.

所以不是签名大10倍，而是大约大100倍，或者可能是50倍。

So instead of 10 times bigger signatures, something like a 100 times bigger signatures, or maybe it's 50.

我不确定。

I don't know.

得去读一下文档。

Have to go read the doc.

然后你就没有这种状态性问题了，但你的费用会非常高。

And then you don't have this statefulness problem, but then your fees are very high.

所以这显然并不理想。

So this is obviously not ideal.

我认为问题的一大关键在于，如果我们今天设计软件来支持未来的后量子时代，只有在我们认为人们会采纳它的情况下才有意义。

And I think a big part of the problem is if we are designing a software today to enable future post quantum support, I think it only makes sense if we think people are gonna adopt it.

对吧？

Right?

如果我们认为钱包实际上会开始使用它，今天就将其推出并作为一个选项来保障未来的币安全。

If we think wallets are actually gonna start using it, rolling it out and having it as an option today to secure the coins in the future.

因为如果那不是真的，如果人们只是打算等待，那么今天确实没什么理由去费心做任何事。

Because if that's not true, if people are just gonna wait, well then there's not really much reason to bother with anything today.

就像，你知道，当我们到达那个阶段时，我们可以推出一些软分叉，然后大型托管机构，比如你的Coinbase之类的，它们切换使用不会有问题，我不担心它们。

Like, well, you know, when we get, when we get to that point, we can roll out some soft work and then the large custodians, your Coinbase, your whatever, they'll have no problem switching just to using it, not worried about them.

真正令人担忧的是那些自托管和冷存储的长尾用户，他们可能会忘记某些事情，或者无法及时处理，可能没有关注比特币。

It's the long tail of people with self custody and cold storage who forget about something or might not get to it in time, might not be paying attention to Bitcoin.

我最担心的就是这些钱包。

It's those wallets that I worry the most about.

对于这些钱包，我们希望今天就推出一个变更，让它们从今天开始持续使用，所有人都从今天起就开始使用，这样在十年或更长时间后，它就已经存在了，我们就不必再担心了。

And for those wallets, what we want is we want to roll out a change today that they start using today, consistently that they all start using today, So that in ten years or however long it takes, that's it's already there and we don't have to worry about it.

第三个选项在某种程度上弥合了这里的差异。

A third option that kind of straddles the difference here.

所以，存在一个第三种选择。

So there's kind of a third option.

我们可以选择，好吧，我们两个都做。

There's there's a like, okay, we'll do both.

我们会说这是新的Taproot版本，Taproot版本二，SegWit版本三或四，不管我们现在是哪个版本。

We'll say it's a new Taproot version, Taproot version two, SegWit version three or four, whatever we're at.

它的运作方式将与我前面描述的一样。

And it will work the same as I described earlier.

所以它仍然是Taproot，仍然拥有公钥。

So it's just Taproot, still has a public key.

它仍然使用SecB，并且新增了一个量子安全的TapLeaf。

It still uses SecB, and it just has a new TapLeaf that that is QuantumSafe.

但唯一的区别只是版本号。

But the only difference is just the version number.

在共识上并没有什么不同。

There's no consensus meeting to the difference.

这只是一个不同的版本号。

It's just a different version number.

但通过使用这个版本号，你明确地选择了加入。

But by using that version number, you explicitly opt in.

你举手表示：嘿，我准备好了。

You raise your hand, you say, hey, I'm ready.

这里有一个秘密的TapLeaf。

There is a secret tap leaf here.

你不必担心它，但它确实存在。

You don't have to worry about it, but it exists.

我向你保证，它确实存在。

I I promise you it exists.

如果没有，那也没关系。

And if it doesn't, that's fine.

那是我的问题。

That's my problem.

请冻结我的币。

Please freeze my coins.

所以我选择在这个输出类型上禁用不安全的支出路径。

So I'm gonna opt into having the insecure spend path disabled on this this output type.

所以这算是第三种选择，你知道，它

So that's kind of the third option, you know, it

差不多是这样。

Kinda like that.

我们又回到了破坏Taproot隐私的问题上。

We're back to we're back to wrecking the the privacy of of Taproot.

对吧？

Right?

Taproot 的目标之一是让每个输出在链上看起来都一样，但突然间我们正在破坏这一点。

One of the the calls of Taproot was for every output to look the same on chain, and suddenly we're we're wrecking that.

但它

But it

每个后量子输出都会看起来一样。

Well, every post quantum output would look the same.

它们都会对吧？

They would all right?

是的。

Yes.

所以如果你支持后量子，你就设置这个标志，它就会看起来一样。

So if you supported post quantum, you would set this flag and it would look the same.

假设所有使用 Taproot 的人都会这么做。

And presume like everyone who's using Tapper would do that.

那他们为什么不这么做呢？

So why wouldn't they?

会有

There'd be

没有成本。

no cost.

我的意思是，我觉得有些钱包可能不会那么积极，你知道，像闪电网络这样的可能就不会，因为那些被积极管理的钱包可能不太担心，因为如果量子计算机出现，它们过渡到新的输出类型不会有问题。

Mean, I think Some wallets probably wouldn't as much, you know, something like Lightning might not just because it wallets that are very actively managed probably don't worry as much because they're gonna not gonna have a problem transitioning to a new output type if and when a quantum computer happens.

所以也许它们不会。

So maybe they wouldn't.

我的意思是，你看，推出新的输出类型就是很慢。

I mean, look, it's just, it's slow to roll out output types.

钱包对采纳新事物非常迟缓。

Wallets are very slow to adopt things.

有些钱包至今还不支持发送Taproot交易，更不用说接收了。

Some wallets still don't support Taproot sending, let alone receiving.

事实上，如今钱包中支持接收的情况相当少见。

Receiving is fairly rare, in fact, in wallets today.

所以这需要很长时间，我们会有一些隐私损失，但这可能是一个介于两者之间的第三种选择。

So it would take a lot of time and we would have some privacy loss, but potentially that's a third option that kind of straddles the line.

我有点喜欢这个方案。

I kind of like that.

我喜欢第三种选择。

I like the third option.

是的。

Yeah.

我不，我的意思是，我不是一个

I don't, I mean, I'm not a

所以让我们谈谈吧，首先，实际的解决方案，我第一个承认这些方案有点超出了我的能力范围。

So let's talk about so, so my belief and first of all, the actual solutions, I'm the first person to admit are like a bit way above my pay grade.

我不是密码学家。

Like, I'm not a cryptographer.

我知道，我从技术上尽量了解，但这些问题并不是我所擅长的领域。

Know, I'm technically aware I try my best, but that is not where I'm coming from on this stuff.

关于提高效率和缩小问题范围，我认为我们不应该抱着这样的预期、假设或信念去行动：我们会出去主动地窃取一大堆人的比特币。

In regards to being productive and narrowing the problem set, like, just do not think we should operate under the expectation, or the assumption, or the belief that we're going to go out there and just proactively basically steal a bunch of people's Bitcoin.

我不认为这是比特币的核心理念。

Like, I don't think I don't think that's an ethos of Bitcoin.

我不认为这是社会契约的一部分。

I don't think that's part of the social contract.

我也不认为这是价值主张的一部分。

I don't think that's part of the value prop.

我认为这打破了很多叙事逻辑。

I think it breaks a lot of narrative things.

而且我觉得这简直糟透了。

And I just think it's plain old fucked up.

而且我认为，如果你仔细看、仔细想，要让这个有效，你必须得主动出击。

And I think if you look at it, if you think about it, like for that to be effective, you'd have to be proactive about it.

所以我们讨论的是一个充满大量炒作的行业。

So we're talking about something like an industry that's filled with a ton of hype.

最大的担忧是某种突如其来的量子突破，而人们并未预料到。

The biggest concern is some kind of sudden quantum break that people aren't expecting.

我不知道我们如何才能客观地判断这种情况是否正在发生，除非比特币正在被盗。

I don't know how we'd ever be able to objectively decide that that was happening unless Bitcoin was being stolen.

但即使比特币被盗了，比如中本聪明天转移了他的比特币，那到底是量子攻击，还是中本聪自己在转移比特币？

But even if Bitcoin was being stolen, it's like if Satoshi moves his Bitcoin tomorrow, like, was that quantum or was that Satoshi moving his Bitcoin?

你根本无法真正确定。

Like, there's no way for you to really know.

我不认为这是最有可能发生的情况。

I don't so I don't think that that's the most likely scenario.

我认为我们更应该关注的是，提前几年就能预见到这种情况的场景。

And I think the scenario we should focus more on is a scenario where we see it coming for a few years.

因为我认为这一直是量子计算的发展历史。

Because I think that's been the history of Quantum.

我的意思是，量子计算主要由私营企业资助，而它们喜欢宣传自己的工作，因为它们需要投资。

I mean, it's primarily been funded by private enterprises who like to talk about their work because they need investment.

他们必须持续吸引投资。

They have to continue to attract investment.

建造这些东西极其昂贵。

It's wildly expensive to build these things.

因此他们夸大自己的进展，以便能够宣传。

And so they brag a bar about their progress so that they can talk about it.

所以我认为，如果量子计算机真的变得具有密码学相关性，我们很可能会提前数年就得到预警。

And so, you know, I think it's very, very likely that if and when a quantum computer becomes cryptographically relevant, we'll have years of notice.

但要明确的是，当量子计算机的可用量子比特数、相干时间等指标持续提升时，我们会看得很清楚，可以绘制出一张图表。

But be clear that it'll be clear that like it's continuing to increase the number of available qubits, the coherence time, the whatever, it's continuing to increase and we can plot a graph.

到那时，我们就能画出一条趋势线，说：‘好了，当这条曲线达到这个位置时，我们就完蛋了。’

At that point, we'll be able to plot a graph and like, you know, draw a line and be like, okay, when this graph reaches this line, we're screwed.

我们还能给出一些误差范围，说：‘根据过去的发展趋势，这很可能在接下来的三年内发生，或在三到五年之间。’

And we'll be able to put some error bounds and say like, well, it's gonna happen in the next three years, between three and five years based on past trends.

我认为，极有可能我们真正应该担忧的就是这种情景。

I think with high likelihood, that's the kind of scenario we should worry about.

那么，社区该怎么做呢？

And like, what does the community do

三年？首先，我从根本上不同意这个观点。

three So years like, I think I've, first of all, fundamentally disagree with that.

我认为，首先，初创公司究竟如何实现密码学上的实际盈利，还有待观察。

Like, I don't think that like, I think, first of all, it's yet to be seen how startups will actually be able to monetize any cryptographic relevance.

我不明白，除了攻击比特币，他们还能怎么盈利。

I don't understand how they monetize it short of attacking Bitcoin.

其次，我认为这从一开始就是一种投资者骗局。

And then the second piece is, I think that's an investor scam to begin with.

但真正可能受益的是政府，特别是主要国家：美国、以色列、中国，也许还可以加上俄罗斯——这些大国有很多理由希望秘密破解基本的密码学原语。

But like, I think who could really benefit is governments, specifically the majors, US, Israel, China, maybe throw Russia in there, the majors have a lot of have a lot of reasons for why they would want to be able to break, you know, basic crypto primitives and they would be doing it in secret.

也许我们看到这么多所谓的研究透明度，正如你所说，是因为人们在融资，但也因为距离实现密码学相关性还很遥远，所以他们还没有动力保持隐蔽。

And maybe the reason that I think the reason that we see so much quote unquote transparency on research and stuff, like you said, is because people are raising, but also because it's so far away from being cryptographically relevant that they don't have an incentive to go dark yet.

我认为，任何认真对待此事的人，一旦接近突破，都会立即转入隐蔽状态。

Like I assume anyone who's serious about it would be would go dark anytime they got close to it.

我不认为他们会站在屋顶上告诉人们，我们即将攻击你的消息加密或攻击你的中心金融系统

I don't think they'd be telling people from the rooftops like we're about to attack your message encryption or attack your attack your It central financial

将会继续非常昂贵

will continue to be very expensive.

即使，比如说，即使你觉得没问题，你也会看到它

Even if, like, even if you're like, okay, and you'll see it too.

谷歌的量子实验室，谷歌没有发布任何关于终止它的公开声明，但他们三年前就停止发布任何进展信息了

Google's quantum lab, Google didn't make any public announcements about killing it, but they stopped releasing any information about their progress three years ago.

这很可疑。

That's suspicious.

得了吧。

Come on.

我的意思是，我们能看到这些情况，而现实是，没错，你说得对。

I mean, like we can see these things and the reality is, yes, you're right.

你知道，政府可能会需要它。

You know, there's governments might want it.

我认为有两点。

I think there's two points.

有人提出，如果政府真的拥有了具备密码学意义的量子计算机，他们不会浪费时间来偷比特币。

People have raised the point that if governments do get a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, they're not going to waste their time stealing Bitcoin.

他们会利用它来破解加密，以便能够监视全世界的人，而不必担心偷钱的问题，因为这对他们来说比在全球范围内破解所有人的加密价值要小得多。

They're gonna, they're gonna use it to break encryption so that they can spy on everyone in the world and not worry about trying to steal money because that's worth a lot less to them than breaking everyone's encryption everywhere in the world.

但我认为更重要的是，现实是私营市场正在赢得这场竞争。

But I think much more importantly, the reality is the private market is winning this.

政府在这类研究、大多数物理学以及大多数私人研究方面并未处于前沿，因为实际的资本主义是一个更好的体系。

The governments have not been at the forefront of this kind of research of most physics, of most private research because the actual capitalism is a much better system.

现实是资本主义优于社会主义。

The reality is capitalism is better than socialism.

因此，这些公司从投资者那里筹集资金来私下建设这方面的工作做得更好，相比之下，政府则不如。

And so these, these companies have done a better job raising money from investors to build this privately versus, versus governments.

所以，是的，我的意思是，你是对的，随着他们越来越接近，会有更大的动机去所谓的'转入地下'。

So, yes, I mean, you're, you're right that there will be a higher incentive to kind of quote, go dark as they start getting closer.

但同样，我们将能够发现他们已经隐匿了。

But again, like we'll be able to see that they went dark.

对。

Right.

这些社群中，你知道，量子领域里会有人泄露信息。

And these communities, you know, there'll be people in the quantum community who leak.

对吧？

Right?

这是大规模项目，尤其是在私营企业中，最大的挑战之一就是泄密者。

This is one of the biggest challenges of large scale things, especially in private enterprise is leakers.

在政府机构中，泄密者会受到严厉惩罚。

Like in government enterprise, leakers can be heavily punished.

你可以把他们关进监狱。

You can throw them in prison.

而在私营企业中，他们随便说点什么，你也很难采取什么措施。

In private enterprise, they can just say stuff and there's not a lot you can do.

你可以起诉他们，但这只能起到有限的作用。

You can sue them, but it only goes so far.

嗯，如果是涉及国家安全的情况，你仍然可以秘密行动。

Well, you can if a national security thing, you can still black bag them.

如果是政府相关的事情，是的，当然可以。

If it's a government thing, yeah, sure.

但如果是私营企业，那就无所谓了。

Well, if it's private enterprise, it doesn't matter.

我并不太担心政府会用它来窃取，因为量子技术历史上从未发生过这种情况。

I'm not as worried about And governments using it to steal it's just not, it's not been the history of quantum.

就像我们看到的，物理学的历史也是如此。

Like we've seen, it's not the history of physics.

对吧？

Right?

人们早就知道美国在制造原子弹之前就已经在进行相关研究了。

It's not like people didn't know The US was building an atomic weapon before they were.

就像物理学界的每个人都知道德国人和美国人正在制造原子武器，因为研究...哦该死，我想我们能...你知道，物理学家们看到了所有这些在国际上共享的公开研究。

Like everyone in physics knew the Germans and the Americans were building an atomic weapon because the research to, oh crap, I think we can, you know, physicists saw all of this public research that was being shared internationally.

这就像是，哦等等，如果你那样做，我想你就能...用这个来造炸弹。

That's like, oh, wait, if you do that, I think you could, like, use this to build a bomb.

对吧？

Right?

然后只需要思考一天你就会意识到，没错，世界上每个国家都在试图制造这种炸弹。

And then it only takes a day of thinking about it before you're like, yeah, every country in the world is trying to build this bomb.

没有人会不这么做的。

There's no way anyone's not doing this.

当然。

Sure.

你可能实际上并不知道他们进展到了哪一步，离造出炸弹还有多远，但确实如此。

You might not know actually how far they are and how close they are to building a bomb, but Yeah.

那只是理论上的。

It was theoretical.

每个人都在做。

Everyone's doing it.

你知道大家都在做，而且你知道这距离实现没那么远。

You know everyone's doing it and you know it's not that potentially that far off.

政府当然知道这离实现不远了。

Certainly governments knew it wasn't far off.

所以我不确定，我只是说，是的，也许我们会看到一些进展，然后突然就沉寂了，但那也会是一个非常强烈的信号。

So I don't, I just, you know, yes, maybe we'll start seeing progress and then it'll go dark, but that'll also be really strong indication.

好吧，不管怎样，我认为如果真的发生了，我会明确表示，如果发生，那一定是秘密进行的。

Well, anyway, I think if it happens, I'll be on the record that I think if it happens, it'll be dark.

首先，第一个使用它的是一个政府。

And then first of all, it'll be a government that uses it.

这肯定会是一个政府。

It's gonna be a government.

不会是如果

It's not gonna be a If

是政府，我不担心这个。

it's a government, I'm not worried about it.

嗯，这家初创公司将会

Well, the the startup is gonna

攻击比特币。

attack Bitcoin.

这家初创公司会被吸收。

The startup will be absorbed.

初创公司会被政府吸收。

The startup will be absorbed by governments.

在任何具有密码学意义的事情发生之前，初创公司早就被政府吸收了。

The startups will be absorbed by governments way before anything cryptographically relevant happens.

很有可能。

Quite possibly.

在这种情况下，他们直到比特币登上《纽约时报》才会对它采取行动。

And in that case, they won't do anything to Bitcoin until it's like in the New York Times.

但这也是整个事情中另一个荒谬的点：我不明白，这个理论上的攻击者怎么赚钱呢？

Well, that's the other piece that's like ridiculous about all of this is like, I don't like, how does this theoretical attacker monetize?

我只是觉得他们不可能做到，你不可能一下子在市场上抛售400万枚或200万枚比特币，不管具体数字是多少。

Like, I just do not think they're a, you can't dump, you're not gonna be able to dump 4,000,000 Bitcoin or 2,000,000 Bitcoin, whatever the number is on the market at once.

没错。

No.

但你可以慢慢分批抛售。

But you can do it slowly over time.

对。

Right.

从而严重打压比特币的价格。

And really depress the price of Bitcoin.

我认为这是我最后想提的一点。

I think this is one last thing that I wanted to to raise.

除非市场意识到正在发生什么，否则你就做不到。

Unless the market realizes what's going on, and then you can't.

然后呢？

And then what?

比特币会归零吗？因为没人想买这个东西？

Bitcoin goes to zero because no one wants to buy this thing?

我的意思是，是的。

I mean, yeah.

好吧。

Okay.

那是有可能的。

That that's possible.

对吧？

Right?

但你描述的就是这种情况。

But that that's what you're describing.

因为比特币已经归零了，所以卖不出去。

Like, can't sell it because Bitcoin has gone to zero.

嗯，那也不是归零，而是大幅下跌。

Well, that'd not zero, but like significantly down.

当然。

Sure.

我觉得这是有可能的。

I think that's possible.

但我认为这里还有一个最后的点值得提出。

But I think there's one last point here that that's worth raising.

在一个未来世界里，比特币已经面临量子计算机的存在，无论人们是基于公开信息认为三年内就会实现，还是比特币被大量抛售，且有内部人士声称量子计算已经实现，等等，

In a future world where Bitcoin is now, where quantum computer exists, whether it's become, whether people are like, oh, it's gonna be here in three years based on public knowledge, whatever, or whether it's the coins are being dumped and like, there's some leaker who's claiming that it's quantum and like, yeah,

这正是会发生的情况，因为我们根本无从知晓。

it's That's what it would be like, because we wouldn't know.

也许吧。

Maybe.

无论如何，都会出现一次分叉。

In either case, there will be a fork.

对吧？

Right?

比如有人会编写代码，创建一个分叉，冻结所有量子不安全的支出密钥。

Like someone is going to write the code to make a fork that freezes all the quantum insecure spend passes.

偷走那些比特币。

Steals those Bitcoin.

是的。

Yeah.

不管怎样。

Whatever it is.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，如果量子计算机真的存在，这些比特币迟早会被偷走。

I mean, if a quantum computer exists, they're gonna be stolen one way or another.

对吧？

Right?

无论它们是被冻结还是被窃取，都无关紧要。

It doesn't matter whether they're frozen or stolen.

它们不会回到原始所有者手中，但这个分叉将会存在。

They're not going to go to the original owner, but there will be, this fork will exist.

因此，最终将由市场来决定。

And so it'll ultimately be up to the market to decide.

对吧？

Right?

我们无法决定，这也不是社区内某种哲学性的讨论。

It's not, we don't get to decide and it's not some like philosophical discussion within the community.

是的。

Yes.

这会影响市场，但最终市场将决定这两种潜在的比特币中，哪一种才是真正的、最有价值的比特币。

That feeds into the market, but ultimately the market is going to decide which of these two potential Bitcoins is the real Bitcoin that is the most valuable.

比特币价值的很大一部分，来自于它的唯一性。

There's a large part of Bitcoin value, Bitcoin's value comes from the fact that there is only one.

所以我认为会有一个占据主导地位。

And so I think one is going to dominate.

我们在

We saw this in the

现金流峰值时看到了这一点。

peak cash flow.

同意这一点。

Agree with that.

会有一个立即胜出的。

There's one that that will immediately take

一个胜出。

One a look wins.

一个会赢。

One will win.

在某个时候。

At some point.

然后另一个在那个时刻趋于零。

And then it's the other one trends to zero at that point.

所以这实际上是一个竞争性权衡的问题。

And so it's really a question of this competing trade.

比如，你的观点是比特币绝不能冻结这些币，因为冻结币违背了比特币的哲学。

Like is your view Bitcoin must never freeze these coins because it's against Bitcoin's philosophy to freeze coins.

没收资产违背了比特币的哲学，而这就是资产没收，因此这种情况绝不能发生，因此这个比特币毫无价值。

It's seizure, asset seizure is against Bitcoin's philosophy, and this is asset seizure, and thus it must not happen, and thus this Bitcoin is valueless.

或者另一个比特币的供应量少了一百五十万枚，这一百五十万枚比特币即将进入市场，无论立即还是在未来若干年内，都会在接下来的若干年内压低价格。

Or this other Bitcoin has a million and a half less supply, and that million and a half Bitcoin is about to be on the market, whether immediately or over the next however many years, depressing the price over the next however many years.

我根本不相信这个论点会输。

I do not buy for a second that that argument doesn't win.

这个比特币的供应量少了10%。

This Bitcoin has 10% less supply.

实际上并不是。

Actually not.

对吧？

Right?

所以再次强调，只有那些没有使用助记词的钱包才会受影响。

So it's important again to point out that it's only wallets that didn't use a seed phrase.

对吧？

Right?

所以使用助记词的钱包完全没问题。

So wallets that use the seed phrase are totally fine.

他们可以申领自己的资金，把钱拿回来。

They can claim their money, they can get their money back.

因此，当我们讨论时，我们真正谈论的只是那些非常古老的币，也就是2011年左右的中本聪时代币，大概有百万枚左右，对吧？

And so even when we're talking, so what we're really talking about is just the really old coins, just the Satoshi era, 2011 era stuff, which is I guess, you know, something like a million coins, right?

所以，这个比特币的供应量少了5%，因为中本聪不再拥有他的币了。

So there's 10, there's 5% less supply on this Bitcoin that no, Satoshi no longer has his coins.

而另一个比特币的供应量则多了5%，不仅理论上更多，实际上市场上也多了这么多。

And then there's this other Bitcoin where there's 5% more supply, not only more supply in like theory, but more supply actually on the market.

因此，市场上额外的5%比特币意味着市场上可购买的比特币增加了X倍。

So 5% additional Bitcoin available for purchase on the market is probably X more Bitcoin available for purchase on the market.

绝大多数比特币并不在市面上出售。

The vast majority of Bitcoin's not available for purchase.

人们都是坚定持有者，对吧？

People are diamond handed to us, right?

或者至少在当前价格下不会出售。

Or certainly not available for purchase at current prices.

突然间，每天都有X更多的比特币被抛售。

All of a sudden you have X more Bitcoin being sold every day.

别以为那个会赢。

Don't buy that that one's gonna win it.

他们也不认为那个会赢，因为哲学上的争论并不明确。

And they don't buy that that one's gonna win because the philosophical debate isn't clear.

对吧？

Right?

这不仅仅是黑白分明的资产没收问题那么糟糕。

It's not just this black and white asset seizure bad.

这就是资产没收。

This is asset seizure.

我同意。

I agree.

资产没收是坏事。

Asset seizure is bad.

比特币的全部意义就在于防止这种情况成为考虑因素。

The whole point of Bitcoin is to prevent that from ever being a consideration.

但这并非黑白分明，因为这些币将被盗走。

But it's not black and white because these coins are gonna be stolen.

比如，期权不是

Like, options aren't

我们不知道

We don't know

那个。

that.

冻结这些币，假设存在量子计算机，但你不会知道。

Freeze the coins, assuming assuming there's a quantum computer and it's But you wouldn't know

在那时。

at that point.

在那时你不会知道。

You wouldn't know at that point.

这将是主动的。

It'd be proactive.

这将是设计上的主动措施。

It'd be by design proactive.

你不会知道这些币是否会被盗。

You would not know if those coins would be stolen or not.

你会做出一个有根据的

You'd be making think an educated

这可能是真的，因为情况并不明确。

that's potentially true that it's unclear.

我认为在这种情况下

And I think in that case

你事后无法做到。

You can't do it afterwards.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，你可以等。

I mean, you can wait.

对吧？

Right?

比如说，萨特西的10000个币已经转移了，而这个爆料者声称量子计算机已经存在，谷歌在五年前停止公布进展之前一直在量子计算机领域取得良好进展，但他们并没有停止投资。

It's like, okay, well, you know, 10,000 of Satoshi's coins have moved and this leaker is claiming that a quantum computer exists and Google was making good progress towards a quantum computer until five years ago when they stopped announcing it, but they didn't stop investing in it.

你可以提出一个非常连贯的论点，证明量子计算机确实存在。

You know, you can make, you'll be able to make a very cohesive argument that a quantum computer exists.

存在密码学相关的量子计算机，抱歉。

Cryptographically relevant quantum computer exists, sorry.

到了那时，问题就会变成哪一个更有价值。

And then at that point, it'll be a question of which one has more value.

我的意思是，这属于推测，但我认为你能提出一个非常连贯的论点。

I, you know, this is speculation, but I think you'll be able to make a very cohesive argument.

因为你能够提出一个非常连贯的论点，所以围绕这是否属于资产没收的哲学争论就会失效，因为它不再是非黑即白了，不，不，不。

And because you'll be able to make a very cohesive argument, the, the philosophical debate around whether this is asset seizure will lose because it will no longer be black and white because it will be, no, no, no.

我不认为这是资产没收，因为另一种情况是资产被直接窃取。

I don't think this is asset seizure because the alternative is that the assets are just stolen.

而不是原主人能保留他们的钱。

Not that the original owner gets to keep their money.

无论如何，这些资产都不会再由原主人持有。

They're just, they're just, they're not gonna be held by the owner either way.

我的意思是，首先，我们只是基于市场动态在做推测。

I mean, I, I mean, I, first of all, I, we're just making speculation based on market dynamics.

但我并不认为，冻结大量比特币——包括比特币创造者的比特币——这一方能在分叉中获胜，这个论点如此有力。

But I don't believe the case is that strong that the side that freezes a ton of Bitcoin, including the creator of Bitcoin's Bitcoin would win in a fork.

就像我不认为这一定是事实。

Like I don't believe that's necessarily the case.

我认为，首先，如果有人确实破解了这些密钥，我认为他们在分叉情况下没有立即抛售的强烈动机，因为他们在分叉的另一侧没有任何比特币。

I think if first of all, by the way, like if someone does, if someone does compromise those keys, I think they have a pretty strong incentive not to immediately dump in a fork situation because they have no Bitcoin on the other side of the fork.

我认为他们有充分的理由对此大声疾呼。

I think they have a decent argument to be very loud about that.

如果我的观点正确，如果这个分叉真的会获胜，那么中本聪的比特币实际上已经被冻结了。

I I would argue if you're correct, if you're correct that that fork would win, then Satoshi's coins are already frozen.

如果中本聪明天醒来开始花他的比特币，会有人提出分叉，说是因为量子计算导致他转移资金吗？

Satoshi woke up tomorrow and started spending his Bitcoin, is someone going to propose a fork and say that it was quantum that's making him move?

他的比特币是因为量子计算才在移动吗？

Is his Bitcoin is moving because of quantum?

因为只要中本聪明天动他的比特币，价格就会立刻下跌。

Because the price would start dumping as soon as Satoshi moves his Bitcoin tomorrow.

对。

Right.

但我认为，现在没有人能提出一个有力的论点，说存在具有密码学相关性的量子计算机。

But but I think, like, no one can make a good argument today that it's a quantum computer cryptographically relevant quantum computer.

好吧，他们的论点关键在于萨特oshi的比特币被转移，因为这可能是打破量子计算炒作的最重要事件。

Well, the the key of their argument would be Satoshi's coins moving because that's probably the single biggest thing that could break through hype on quantum.

我甚至不知道我是否会相信量子计算的存在，除非那些老旧的比特币首先被盗。

I don't I I don't even know I would believe quantum exists unless old coins were stolen in the first place.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，你必须能让这个说法显得可信。

I mean, I think you have to be able to it has to be plausible.

对吧？

Right?

比如，如果萨特oshi的比特币明天被转移了，我会赌这是萨特oshi自己在操作，或者存在某种经典计算机的问题。

Like, it is it is like if Satoshi's coins move tomorrow, I would bet that it's Satoshi moving their coins or that there is some some classical computer issue.

也许生成这些币的随机性并不安全，或者其他原因，但根据我们目前掌握的所有证据，似乎相当有说服力的是，目前公开的最好的量子计算机、最先进的量子计算机是众所周知的。

Maybe maybe the the randomness making the the coins wasn't secure or whatever, like, but not on a quantum computer based on all of the evidence we have of, it seems relatively compelling that the best public quantum, the best quantum computer, the best state of the art quantum computer is publicly known.

但我们并不知道这是否属实。

And But we don't know that's true.

我们不知道这是否属实，但这似乎是一个相当稳妥的猜测。

We don't know that's true, but it seems like a pretty safe bet.

我认为大多数人

I think most

你觉得中国人会告诉别人吗？

Do you think the Chinese would would tell people?

如果政府真有一台，不会。

If the government had one, no.

但同样，实际上，这些社群规模很小，而且是开放的。

But again, like the in practice, these communities are small and these communities are open.

对。

Right.

任何小众领域的真实情况是，这些社群通常规模小且开放。

The reality of any, any niche thing is that generally the communities are small and open.

因此，参加量子计算机会议的人彼此都认识，也知道谁在研发什么。

And so the people who show up at quantum computer conferences know each other and they know who's building what.

是的，中国可能有一个秘密实验室，其技术水平超越了西方所有其他实验室。

And yeah, it's possible the Chinese have some secret lab that's next smarter than all of the other labs in the West.

这是有可能的。

It's possible.

我的意思是，这显然不太可能。

I mean, it's certainly not likely though.

我不是说中国人笨，但他们只有一个实验室，而西方却有十个实验室在研发不同类型的量子计算机。

You know, it's not saying Chinese people are dumb, but like they're, they have one lab and it's gonna be, you know, 10 labs building different types of quantum computers in the West.

不太可能，我知道中国有很多聪明的量子物理博士，但他们能比西方十种不同的研究路径都更出色吗？

Unlikely, you know, I think there's tons of smart PhD quantum researchers in China, but are they gonna be better than 10 times more approaches in the West?

大概不会。

Probably not.

那我还有个问题想问你。

So I have another question for you.

那么按照你的逻辑来说，对吧？

So like why from your logic, right?

好的。

Okay.

所以如果你冻结了容易被盗的比特币，那么在实施冻结的分叉链上比特币显然会更少，对吧？

So if you freeze Bitcoin that is vulnerable to being stolen, then clearly there's less Bitcoin on the fork that has it frozen, right?

因为从设计上来说，你是在冻结一堆比特币。

Because by design, you're freezing a bunch of Bitcoin.

为什么偏偏对量子计算如此着迷？我们可能冻结被盗的比特币，但其他所有盗窃比特币的方法却从未考虑过冻结比特币。

Why is it the fascination that like, with quantum specifically, we're freezing potentially stolen Bitcoin, But with every other method of stealing Bitcoin is never even contemplated freezing Bitcoin.

例如，目前的推测是马杜罗政府拥有60万枚比特币。

For instance, the speculation right now is that Maduro's government had 600,000 Bitcoin.

我们就直说吧。

Let's just put it out there.

假设情况就是这样。

Let's say that's the case.

我认为这被夸大了，但假设情况就是这样。

I think that's overstated, but let's say that's the case.

为什么

Why

美国政府派三角洲部队突袭他的总部并那样没收比特币？

does the US government dropping Delta Force on his headquarters and seizing the Bitcoin that way?

这有什么不同？

How is that any different?

比如，为什么那样？

Like, why is that?

我们为什么不冻结他们的比特币？

Why aren't we freezing their Bitcoin?

那么如果美国政府秘密建造了一台密码学相关的量子计算机并用那种方式窃取了马杜罗的比特币呢？

Then if the US government secretly built a quantum cryptographically relevant quantum computer and stole Maduro's Bitcoin that way?

就是，为什么呢？

Like, why is it?

我认为这是因为系统内问题与系统外问题的区别。

I think because an in system question versus an out of system question.

这就像在一个他们已经研发出密码学相关量子计算机的世界里，我们今天拥有的比特币将无法使用。

It's like if in a world where they asked cryptographically relevant quantum computer, it is impossible to use the Bitcoin we have today.

对吧？

Right?

任何拥有比特币的人，无论地址类型如何，他们的币都会在他们采取任何行动之前被立即窃取。

Like anyone who has any Bitcoin, no matter the address type, they start moving their coins instantly stolen before they can do anything.

比特币，这就是为什么它容易被窃取的原因。

Bitcoin Well, that's why it's important have that they can steal.

是的。

Yes.

但如果你深入推演下去，量子计算机并不仅仅是一种可以通过派兵或类似手段窃取某些人资产的工具。

But it's if you if you play it out, right, a quantum computer isn't just something that can steal from some people by sending in guns or whatever.

量子计算机是一种会破坏整个系统，使其在任何方面都变得完全不可行和无法使用的东西。

A quantum computer is something that breaks the whole system and makes the system totally untenable and totally unusable in any way, shape or form.

我认为，任何导致绝大多数比特币被盗的密码学突破都会产生同样的后果。

And I think the same is true for any kind of cryptographic break that results in the vast majority of Bitcoin being stolen.

是的。

Yeah.

但这个问题可以在不冻结比特币的情况下解决。

But that that can be solved without freezing Bitcoin.

比如，可以通过某种方式来解决，你知道的，像

Like that can be solved by having a that, you know, like

这里存在灰色地带。

a Here quand too, there are shades of gray.

对吧？

Right?

你的你的

Your your

V3方法。

v three method.

对吧？

Right?

你的V3方法可以在不冻结那些没有同意被冻结比特币的人的比特币的情况下解决这个问题。

Your v three method could solve that without freezing people's Bitcoin who didn't opt in to being having their Bitcoin frozen.

对。

Right.

事情有灰色地带。

There are shades of gray.

对吧？

Right?

所以，我认为，关于基于助记词的钱包这一点也很重要，对吧？

So if there's, I think, I think the, the point about seed phrase based wallets is also important to consider though, right?

假设我们知道量子计算机即将被制造出来，那么你的选择是……

Where it's okay, your options are, you know, assume we know a quantum computer is about to be built.

你知道，有一种方案的比特数刚刚不足，只有96位而不是128位量子比特之类的。

You know, there's one that has just shy of enough bits, 96 instead of 128 qubits or whatever it is.

对吧？

Right?

它取得了不错的进展。

It's making good progress.

它展现了持续的增长。

It's shown consistent growth.

很明显，目前这些问题都只是工程挑战。

It's very clear that they're just engineering challenges at this point.

好吧，有些钱包已经切换了，但肯定不是全部。

And okay, some wallets have switched, but certainly not all of them.

有些币种已经迁移了，但肯定不是所有币种都迁移到了这种新的——你知道的，Taproot版本二，只是增加了一个额外的信号位来表明你是安全的。

And some coins have moved, but certainly not all of them have moved to this new, you know, it's Taproot version two, just an extra signaling bit to indicate that you're secure.

你的选择是：冻结那些没有种子短语证明、无法进行种子短语验证的币，以确保量子计算机拿不到钱；或者不冻结。

Your options are freeze coins that don't have a seed phrase proof that can't do the seed phrase proof technique, such that the quantum computer doesn't get any money, or don't.