比特币垃圾信息：基于现金证明的自由中继视角 | SLP703

要知道，我认为这才是人们真正忽略的关键论点。

You know, I think this is the key argument that people really just drop.

他们期望一旦有变化，人们的行为就会立即随之改变。

They expect that if there's a change, that there will be an instantaneous associated change in people's behavior.

但这根本不符合事实，对吧？

But this is just not true, right?

现实中存在各种延迟和外部因素，这些都会影响变革发生的速度。

In reality, there are all sorts of latencies and externalities that actually come into play that affect how quickly changes are made.

而且由于很多比特币持有者非常厌恶风险，即使他们知道某事可行，也可能不愿意冒险尝试，除非越来越多人已经这样做。

And because a lot of Bitcoiners are very risk averse, even if they know something is possible, they may not be willing to hazard trying that out until more and more people have done it.

他们会环顾四周，看到这种做法已经变得相当普遍。

And they look around and they see that this is a much more commonly done thing.

是啊。

Yeah.

我想这个Substats Summa现象严格来说更像是一种社会现象。

And I guess this the whole Substats Summa thing arguably is more like a social phenomenon.

对吧？

Right?

我记得是Mononord还是Peter Todd等人注意到了这一点，然后他们指出来之后，矿池就开始降低门槛了，我想他们降低的是MinRelay TXP，就是我们讨论的这个参数。

I think, was it Mononord or Peter Todd or someone kind of noticed this, and then it I think they pointed it out, then it sort of became a thing that mining pools started to drop their threshold, I guess, their MinRelay TXP, I guess, what we're talking about here.

现在这里有个来回拉锯的过程，有人说有些矿池把门槛降得太低，然后理论上或者说有人认为，这样会导致孤块率上升。

Now there is kind of a point back and forth there where people said some of these mining pools, they lowered it really low, and then theoretically or arguably, I think they were saying, oh, but the orphan rate went higher.

所以这对他们来说是个风险。

So that was, like, a risk to them.

因此他们又把门槛调高了，最后找到了一个平衡点。

So therefore, they had they raised it back up, and there was, a sweet spot.

就像你提到的，Mara的Portland Hoddle说过，他们把下限设在0.5 sets，而不是更低的值。

In the case, as you mentioned, Portland Hoddle from Mara mentioned, they set their limit at 0.5 sets instead of, you know, lower than that.

你觉得这是否也牵扯到Knott派的论点，就是越来越多人运行过滤器会伤害那些挖垃圾交易的矿工？

Do you see that as and maybe this ties into kind of also the Knott's argument, the Knott's camp argument of, oh, more and more people running filters hurts people the miners who mine spam.

对吧？

Right?

就是说，某种程度上或者说因为他们会有更高的孤块率，因此他们的利润会减少或收入降低。

Like, kind of or because that they would have a higher orphan rate, and therefore, they are less profitable or get less revenue.

你能解释一下吗？或者至少从你的角度谈谈？

Can you explain that or at least from your perspective?

所以，孤块率显然对任何矿工来说都是个问题，对吧？

So so, orphan rate is obviously a concern for any miner, right?

你肯定不想在挖一个区块时，别人已经宣布找到了该区块的解决方案。

You do not want to be working on a block and then have somebody have already announced a solution to that block.

这样你就拿不到区块奖励了，尽管你已经耗费了电力、时间和精力。

And now you're not getting your block reward, even though you've spent all of this electricity and time and effort.

是的，关于Mara最初接受每虚拟字节0.1 ZAP的交易，然后经过一些数学计算、重新评估风险后，决定0.5更合适。我认为他们的计算方式基本上是考虑过滤可能造成的传播延迟影响。

So yes, in regards to Mara originally taking 0.1 ZAP per V byte transactions and then, you know, doing some math, recalculating their risk, and then deciding that 0.5 was more appropriate, I think that the way that they're calculating that is basically coming down to how much potential propagation delay could be affected by, you know, filtering.

从过滤节点的角度来看，传播延迟大约在6秒左右，这相当于约有1%的概率网络会胜过你的特定矿池，在这个例子中假设你运行的是Knots节点。

So from the perspective of a filtering node, you're looking at about six seconds roughly for propagation delays, and that translates to approximately a 1% chance that the network would outcompete your particular pool, saying that you're running on knots in this example.

我认为如果你运行的是高度集中化、大规模化、享受规模经济效应的操作，这显然是个真实存在的风险。

I think that that is obviously a real risk if you're running a highly centralized, highly scaled, you know, benefiting from economies of scale type operation.

我认为如果你像我这样在地下室运行一个小型矿场，只有每秒几百太哈希的算力，这可能对你影响不大。

I think it's probably not as big of a deal to you if you're running a smaller mining operation like what I'm doing in my basement with a few 100 terahashes per second of hash rate.

这实际上与光纤网络密切相关。

And this actually ties in really well to the fiber network.

光纤网络是Matt Carollo很久以前推出的，它基本上采用了与紧凑区块重建相同的逻辑，即依赖矿工的内存池中已经包含即将进入区块的交易。

So the fiber network was something that was launched by Matt Carollo a long time ago, and it basically used the same logic as compact block reconstruction where you're relying on miners having the transactions that are going to go into a block being in their mempool already.

而实际的重建过程是，你将这些交易从内存池提取到区块中，同时也会获取不属于该区块的任何其他交易。

And then the actual process of reconstructing the block is you pull all of those transactions from your mempool into the block, and then you also grab any transactions that were not part of that block.

那一小段时间，我认为就是你提到的关于引入的孤立风险。

That small slice of time, I is think, what you're referring to in regards to the orphaning risk that's introduced.

而这个风险会随着你内存池中没有的交易数量而增加。

And this is something that scales with the number of transactions that you do not have in your mempool.

我认为实际上可以通过改善全网的转发策略来解决这个问题，对吧？

I think this is actually fixed by having better relay policy across the network, right?

这也是Core v30版本做出这个改动的原因之一。

Which is one of the reasons why Core v30 changed this.

如果你看看运营Forth Monitor的那个人，他从v29升级到v30后，发现其紧凑区块重建率显著提升。

If you look at the guy who runs Forth Monitor, he had updated from v29 to v30 and he saw his compact block reconstruction rates significantly improving.

作为矿工，这一点并没有改变。

And as a miner, this does not change.

这种机制以及这种与网络的互动方式始终如一。

This mechanic and this sort of, you know, interaction with the network has always been the same.

但人们在分析矿工运作方式时忽略了一点：矿工不一定会与更广泛的点对点网络建立连接并依赖它们获取交易。

But one thing that people leave out in their factoring of how miners operate is that miners do not necessarily just peer with the wider peer to peer network and rely on them to get transactions.

矿工经常通过高带宽、低延迟的连接（如光纤）直接与其他矿工建立连接，这类连接还使用UDP而非TCP协议，以确保不必等到整个数据序列传输完毕才发现某段数据损坏或丢失，然后才需要重传。

Miners very often will peer over high bandwidth, low latency connections to miners directly using things like fiber, which also makes use of UDP instead of TCP to ensure that you don't have to wait until an entire sequence of data is transmitted before you find out that one piece of data was corrupted or maybe missing, and then you have to resend that data.

关键在于，矿工已经以某种方式与其他矿工建立连接，使他们能够非常快速地获取交易。

Point being there is miners are already going to peering with other miners in such a way that they'll be able to get transactions very, very quickly.

因此他们可以合理降低因引入网络中其他节点内存池里没有的交易而带来的风险，对吧？

So they can reasonably minimize the amount of risk that gets brought upon pulling in transactions that other nodes in the network did not have in their mem pools, right?

因为说到底，矿工运行的并不是一个普通的核心程序。

Because miners, at the end of the day, are not running just a vanilla core.

他们在核心代码基础上运行补丁程序，有时用于区块模板构建，有时通过连接Libre Relay节点并设置更宽松的中继策略，以便能接收到所有那些交易信息。

They're running core with patches on top, sometimes to block template construction, sometimes by peering with Libre Relay nodes and setting more permissive policy in regards to Relay so that they can hear about all of those transactions.

据我所知，目前没有一个矿工使用Libre Relay作为他们的区块模板构建器。

Not one miner out there, to my knowledge, uses Libre Relay as their block template constructor.

他们仅通过一个Libre Relay节点监听交易。

They simply hear with one Libre Relay node.

这就足以将这些交易纳入他们自己的内存池了，对吧？

And that's enough to get those transactions into their own Mempools, right?

因此，只要你有能力从网络的任何部分监听到这些交易，就不需要依赖网络中更大部分来获取这些交易信息。

So as long as you have the ability to hear those transactions from any part of the network, you don't need to rely on the greater portion of the network in order to be able to hear those transactions.

我认为这里的情况稍有不同的是海洋矿工，比如那些为Datum挖矿的人。

Where I think the equation here changes a little bit is with ocean miners, with people who are mining to Datum, for example.

这些人通常没有运行修改版的Core客户端。

Those people are generally not running a modified version of Core.

他们通常也不会与Libre Relay节点建立连接。

They're generally not peering with Libre Relay nodes.

他们只是与点对点网络建立连接。

They're just peering with peer to peer network.

在那种情况下，确实如此。

In that situation, yes.

通过运行更严格的过滤器，你实际上增加了自己被孤立的风险。

By running stricter filters, you are putting yourself at higher risk for being orphaned.

但这与中心化矿工面临额外孤立风险的情况不同，对吧？

But this isn't the same as centralized miners being hit with additional orphan risk, right?

所以简而言之，我认为MARA在这里是出于过度谨慎的考虑。

So TLDR, I think MARA is operating out of an abundance of caution here.

我预测未来如果比特币价格继续上涨，这个数值可能会从每VBITE 0.5聪降至0.4聪，对吧？

I predict that in the future, if Bitcoin's price continues going up, that that will drop from 0.5 SATs per VBITE, maybe down to 0.4, right?

0.1聪确实非常非常低了。

0.1 is truly very, very low.

他们从包含这些交易中获得的收益微乎其微，冒任何被孤立的风险都不值得，对吧？

They're gaining so little, little revenue from including these transactions that risking any bit of orfeiting is just not worth it, right?

但如果比特币价格持续上涨，那么0.25、0.3、0.4左右的价值区间，仍然值得承担孤块风险——毕竟这种风险本身就很低，因为矿工可以通过高速网络互相连接。

But if Bitcoin's price continues to go up, then it's very possible, very likely even, that 0.25, point three, 0.4, somewhere around that neighborhood is still worth the potential risk of orphan blocks, which is, you know, again, low because miners can peer with one another over these high speed links.

所以如果蜘蛛矿池与Mara保持对等连接，且蜘蛛矿池内存池中有这笔交易，他们就能快速完成区块重组，直接在链顶端（可能是Mara最新产出的区块）继续挖矿，对吧？

And so if Spider Pool is peer with Mara and Spider Pool has this transaction in their mempool, it's very easy for Spider Pool to complex block reconstruct very quickly and mine on top of the tip, which might have been Mara's latest block, right?

归根结底，是那些运行节点的算力持有者在决定孤块风险的高低，因为矿工最关心的是自己不会在过时的链顶端挖矿。

At the end of the day, it's the people with hash who are running nodes that are determining what the orphan risk is, because miners predominantly care that they're not mining on top of a stale tip.

现在，为了彻底说明白这个观点，我想提一下间谍挖矿。

Now, to sort of really drive this point home, I want to bring up spy mining.

间谍挖矿是指你实际上不会等待从竞争矿池听到区块信息，就直接在其基础上继续挖矿。

So spy mining is when you don't actually wait to hear a block from a competing pool before mining on top of it.

假设我正在运行自己的矿池，就叫自由矿池吧，只有我和几个朋友参与，同时我还有一个所谓的假矿工连接着Mara的矿池。通过Stratum协议连接，这个假矿工能够获取区块头和哈希值，但无法验证该区块是否真正有效。

So let's say that I am running my pool, which is just me and a few friends called Libre pool, and I have a fake miner, so to speak, that is connected to Mara's pool, it's going to be able to get the header and the hash of that block by being connected over stratum without being able to validate if that block is actually valid.

这能给我带来什么好处？

What does this give me?

这样带来的优势是：如果Mara此刻挖出一个新区块，我将成为最先开始在该区块基础上继续挖矿的人之一，因为我无需等待接收该区块的信息。

It gives me the advantage that if Mara mines a block right this second, that I will be one of the first people to begin mining the block that builds on top of that, because I didn't have to wait to hear that block.

我无需等待验证那个区块。

I didn't have to wait to validate that block.

现在你可能会说，哇，这不是极其堕落吗？

Now you might say, wow, isn't that incredibly degenerate?

对吧？

Right?

你根本无法知道那个区块是否有效。

There's no way for you to know whether or not that block is valid.

但这恰恰说明挖矿竞争如此激烈，有些矿池甚至愿意承担在无效区块上继续构建的风险，只为能率先发起寻找下一个区块的竞赛。

But it just goes to show that mining is such a competitive operation that some mining pools are even willing to take on the risk of building on top of an invalid block just so that they can be the first ones to kick off that race of finding the next block.

基于这些原因，我认为激励机制对我来说是显而易见的。

And for those reasons, I think, you know, the incentives are clear to me.

只要孤块风险不超过某个阈值，矿工们总会愿意开后门，允许少量这类费率较低的交易进入。

So long as the orphan risk doesn't exceed a certain threshold, miners will always be willing to open their back doors and let in a few of these subset, you know, fee rate transactions.

我们已看到这种趋势的形成。

And we've seen that as a trend.

愿意接受此类交易的矿工数量一直在增加，而非减少。

The number of miners who are willing to accept such transactions has been increasing over time, not decreasing.

而且我认为MARA将门槛从0.1降至0.5并不能证明什么。

And I don't think that MARA lowering, you know, the threshold from 0.1 to 0.5 disproves anything.

事实上，我认为这证明了子集交易具有持久力，这些廉价交易有足够的经济需求。

I think, in fact, it proves that there's staying power in subset transactions, that there's enough economic demand for these cheap transactions.

而且，如果你看看使用子集费率的交易类型，这并不令人意外，对吧？

And, you know, I don't I also think it's no surprise if you look at the types of transactions that are using subset fee rates, right?

其中很多是正在合并数千个UTXO的人，每个都是粉尘输出，对吧？

A lot of them are people who are consolidating thousands of UTXOs that are each dust outputs, right?

他们不会愿意为每虚拟字节支付1聪。

They're not going to want to pay one stat per VByte.

那样会损失输入价值的很大一部分，对吧？

That's going to be forfeiting a good portion of the input's values, right?

所以这是非常独特的一类交易，它们并不真正试图与其他交易竞争。

And so this is like a very unique tranche of transactions that doesn't really try to compete with other transactions.

当我以每V字节1 sat的费用开通通道时，我预期这次通道开通能及时完成。

When I'm making a one stat per V by channel open, I am making that channel open with an expectation that it's going to be done in a timely manner.

我有很高的时间偏好。

I have a high time preference.

如果我正在整合数千个UTXO，那是因为我是个沉迷于比特币铭文赌博的狂人，现在只剩下一堆粉尘输出。

If I'm trying to consolidate thousands of UTXOs because I am a degenerate that gambled a ton of Bitcoin on inscriptions and I'm left with all of these dust outputs.

我只想把这些零散输出整合起来，恢复成一个UTXO存回我的硬件钱包。

And I just I just wanna consolidate them and get them back to a UTXO and store them on my hardware wallet.

我不在乎这要花多长时间。

I don't care how long that takes.

如果需要的话，我愿意在内存池里等待数周，只为等到更低的手续费机会。

I'm willing to wait weeks for a, you know, lower fee opportunity in the mempool if need be.

我甚至可以等上几个月，对吧？

I'll wait for months even, right?

对我来说，完成这次整合并不是最优先的，但确保在这个过程中不损失大量价值才是重中之重。

It's not a huge priority for me to get that consolidation through, but it is a huge priority for me to not lose a ton of value in the process.

因此我认为，除非子集费率开始挤占那些更标准的每V字节单笔交易，无论是在交易量还是区块空间上，否则它们对矿工来说永远只是锦上添花的小甜头。

And for that reason, I think unless subset fee rates begin to crowd out, you know, these more standard one set per V byte transactions in terms of both volume as well as block space, they're always just going to be like a nice little cherry on top for the miners.

明白了。

Gotcha.

那么你对'非过滤派'的核心论点——即'如今挖矿已经中心化了'这个普遍观点有何回应？

And what would you say to the general argument then about, like, the not filter argument, which is, well, mining is centralized now.

如果挖矿更去中心化，那么相比纯货币挖矿，那些挖垃圾交易的矿工就会因此受到惩罚。

If it was more decentralized, then spam miners who mine spam get penalized by doing so, compared to monetary only mining, let's say.

是的，我认为确实如此。

Yeah, I think that's true.

我认为这是事实。

I think that's true.

如果我们今天能挥动魔法棒，让全国所有正在用S19、S9甚至廉价矿机在家挖矿的散户们，全都转向改进版Datum（这个我稍后会解释），或者通过CK池或本地公共池实例进行独立挖矿，那么网络惩罚垃圾邮件的能力将大幅提升。

If we were to wave a magic wand today and we got all of the plebs across the entire country who are currently mining at home with their S19s, with their S9s, even their bid access, and they all decided to either mine to an improved version of Datum, I'll get to that in a second, or even solo mining with like a CK pool or public pool locally running instance, yes, you would have a significantly higher ability to punish spam on the network.

那么为什么我认为短期内这种情况不会发生呢？

Now why do I think that that's not something that's going to happen in the short term?

第一个原因是网络不对称性。

The first reason is network asymmetry.

我记得Matt Carollo写过，目前通过TCP连接完整接收一个区块且无需重传的概率约为91%，听起来很不错对吧？

So I think Matt Carollo wrote this, that the current probability of receiving a block in its entirety over a TCP connection without any retransmits being necessary is about ninety one percent, which sounds pretty good, right?

但回到我们之前讨论的孤块风险问题，如果你不是第一个开始挖下一个区块的人，那你基本上就等于放弃了获取该区块的机会。

But again, going back to what we were talking about regarding orphan risk, if you're not the first to start working on that next block, you may as well have given up your opportunity to potentially get that block.

所有操作都对延迟极其敏感，对吧？

Everything is very, very latency sensitive, right?

所以如果你是个矿工，把所有模板构建节点都放在数据中心运营，你不仅能通过规模经济获益——比如申请商业贷款购买大量ASIC矿机，还能享受到最高速的网络连接。

So if you're a miner and you're operating all of your template construction nodes in a data center, not only are you benefiting from economies of scale because you can just, take out a business loan and buy tons of these ASICs, you're also benefiting from having some of the highest speed connections.

你可以与ISP协商获得更好的服务协议，他们必须合同保证特定的正常运行时间和性能水平，否则你可以获得赔偿。

You can negotiate with your ISPs to get better SLAs where they're contractually obligated to have certain levels of uptime and performance that you're essentially dedicated you know, and guaranteed to have, otherwise you'll be able to get money from them.

普通矿工很难与之竞争。

It just becomes very difficult for pleb miners to compete with that.

这也是我认为Ocean要力推Datum并以Datum Prime作为网关的原因之一。

And that's one of the reasons why I think Ocean is pushing Datum with Datum Prime as the gateway.

这个想法在于，你可以在享受这些高速连接的同时，还能在本地进行模板构建。

The idea there being that, you know, you can somewhat benefit from having these high speed connections while also still being able to do your template construction locally.

我对Datum的问题在于，我看过他们工程师的一个视频，他们谈到未来希望实现让部分矿工验证其他矿工的工作。

The problem that I take with Datum is that, and I've watched this video by one of their engineers where they talk about eventually in the future what they want to do is have a subset of miners validate the work of other miners.

我认为这就像是Datum的理想形态。

I think that would be like the platonic ideal of Datum.

如果真能实现，我会站在屋顶上高喊所有人都该立即转向Ocean。

I would be screaming from the rooftops, everybody needs to switch to Ocean right now, if that were the case.

我对当前Ocean和Datum的质疑在于，如果Datum服务器下线后又上线，比如三小时后，所有账目都需要时间追赶同步。

The issue that I take with Ocean and Datum as it exists today is if the Datum server goes offline and then comes online, let's say, three hours later, there's a bit of catch up that needs to happen for all of that accounting to come up to speed.

对吧？

Right?

我认为这本质上意味着Ocean成了不必要的第三方。

I think that that means that essentially Ocean is this unnecessary third party.

除非我们能实现Datum服务器下线时完全不影响运营，否则它还是处于中心化和去中心化之间的过渡状态。

And until we can get to a point where the Datum server can go down and operations are not affected whatsoever, that it's somewhere in between centralized and decentralized.

可能更接近去中心化，但尚未完全去中心化。

Probably closer to decentralized, but not fully decentralized.

我对此的另一个顾虑是，你知道，显然很多人希望降低他们的波动风险，对吧？

And the other issue I take there is that, you know, obviously a lot of people, they want to reduce their variance, right?

他们不想使用CK Pool Solo进行单独挖矿。

They don't want to solo mine with CK Pool Solo.

他们也不愿通过公共矿池进行单独挖矿，用比特币核心或比特币节点构建模板，因为可能挖矿多年却毫无收益。

They don't want to solo mine with Public Pool with their Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots doing template construction because they might be mining and, you know, chugging away at this for years and years with no revenue whatsoever.

但在我看来，这就是这个领域的常态，对吧？

But to me, I think that that's just what comes with the territory, right?

承受不了压力就别干这行。

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

如果无法承受连续十年支付电费却可能挖不到一个区块的风险，那这就是现实，对吧？

If you can't handle paying for power bills for potentially ten years on end without finding a block, well, that's just how the cookie crumbles, right?

所有运营中的矿池都基于这个前提运作。

Every single pool out there that operates, operates under this assumption.

正是FPPS这种按份额支付的方式——就像毒品一样——让人们如此厌恶高波动性，他们只想持续获得少量收益，即使矿池运气高于平均水平或预期，他们也分不到超额收益。

It's only the introduction of, you know, the drug of FPPS where you're paying by share that has made people so averse to high variance, where they want to just get a small amount of payouts constantly, even though if the pool has higher than average or expected luck, they don't get a share of the increased earnings.

对吧？

Right?

比如F2矿池就是这样运作的。

This how F2 pool operates, for example.

所以Ocean正在做的很多事情都很棒。

So a lot of stuff that Ocean is doing is great.

我只是希望他们能在Datum上再加把劲。

I would just like to see them push a little bit harder on Datum.

这样整体叙事就会成立——你可以惩罚垃圾信息发送者，因为算力并非来自少数集中化的挖矿运营。

And then the narrative will generally be true that you can punish spammers because the hash rate is not coming from a handful of centralized mining operations.

但我也认为需要在此处降低预期，因为要让这个去中心化的矿工群体发展起来，同样需要重大的基础设施升级。

But I also think it's important to temper our expectations here because allowing for this decentralized group of miners to bloom requires significant infrastructural upgrades as well.

你需要普通用户的家用网络变得更可靠、更高速度，能够与海量节点建立对等连接，能够使用光纤等技术来推送区块以避免重传需求。

You need the average person with their average Internet being a lot more reliable, being higher speed, being able to peer with tons and tons of nodes, being able to use things like fiber to get blocks pushed in a way that doesn't require retransmits.

所有环节都需要严丝合缝，对吧？

Everything needs to get tightened up, right?

挖矿可不是马虎行当。

Mining is not a sloppy enterprise.

要想持续运营，就必须极度注重细节和精确性。

It requires a lot of attention to detail and precision in order for you to be viable.

对吧？

Right?

所以我对那些声称'我正在修复挖矿中心化问题'的说法总是持保留态度。

So, you know, for that reason, I always take issue with people saying, well, I'm fixing the decentralization of mining.

我在用Ocean矿池挖矿。

I'm mining to Ocean.

对吧？

Right?

我正在本地进行区块模板构建。

I'm doing my block template construction locally.

是的。

Yes.

这确实是关键因素之一。

That's definitely one part of the equation.

但只要你依赖Ocean来正确核算并确保你获得正确报酬，这就始终是个潜在故障点。

But so long as you're dependent on Ocean to do the accounting correctly for you to be paid out correctly, that's always going to be a point of failure.

在我们重构解决这个问题之前——说句公道话，Ocean确实提到过要改进这点——

And until we can refactor that out and, you know, to Ocean's credit, they have talked about doing this.

我认为在真正实现算力去中心化之前，我们还有大量工作要做。

Until we've reached that point, I I think there's still a lot of work that needs to be done before we can truly decentralize Hashpower.

明白了。

I see.

好的。

Okay.

现在关于Librelay的问题——既然它已经存在，基本上意味着人们能让非标准交易被打包上链，那么现在真正起作用的筛选标准是否就是矿工在自己节点上设置的过滤规则？

Now on the question of Librelay, because we've been talking about that, Given that this exists now and it basically means people you can get transactions mined in, nonstandard transactions mined in, is it is it fair to say that the filters that matter now are the filters that a minor applies on their node?

我认为，或许更具体地说，这与其说是矿工设置的mempool策略，不如说是他们愿意允许什么。

I think, perhaps to be more, like, you know, specific here, it's less about the mempool policy that a miner is setting and more about what they're willing to permit.

所以更广义上的策略，不是指他们会

So policy in the more generalized term, not referring to what will

打包进区块的内容。

they put into a block.

对。

Right.

准确地说就是他们关于会打包什么进区块的策略。

Exactly their policy in terms of what they'll put into a block.

我们已经看到矿工曾试图放宽某些限制（比如SIG OPS限制）但未能成功。

Now, we've seen that miners have unsuccessfully tried to, you know, make more permissive certain things like the SIG OPS limit.

我们见过因配置错误导致无效区块被广播到网络上的情况。

We've seen invalid blocks get broadcast onto the network because a miner misconfigured a portion of their modified, you know, daemon that they're using for template construction.

所以我们知道矿工会调整这些设置。

So we know that miners tinker with these settings.

我们知道他们不仅仅是下载最新版的Bitcoin Core并直接用它来挖矿。

We know that they're not just downloading the latest release of Bitcoin Core and using that to mine on top of it.

但最终，确实如此。

But ultimately, yes.

我认为关键在于，矿工决定愿意挖什么内容，这远比过滤器更能决定链上内容的现实情况，因为说到底，过滤器只是一种传输手段，对吧？

I think the answer is what miners decide they're willing to mine shapes the reality of what is going to be on chain far, far more than filters, because at the end of the day, a filter is simply a means of transport, right?

这就好比我说，如果你穿蓝衬衫就不能上公交车。

This would be like if I said, if you're wearing a blue shirt, you can't get on the public bus.

那么穿蓝衬衫的人就不可能到达公园，因为公园旁边就有公交站，对吧？

Therefore, it's going to become impossible for people who are wearing blue shirts to get to the park, because there's a bus stop right next to the park, right?

这完全忽略了你完全可以开车去公园的事实。

It completely ignores the fact that you could just hop in your car and drive to the park if you want.

你甚至可以搭乘某条可能执行反蓝衬衫政策的公交线路，但也许实际上并没有严格执行。

You could even hop onto a bus line that maybe is enforcing the anti blue shirt policy, but maybe not really.

有很多方法可以找到那些更宽容、更同情你处境的人，帮助你从A点到达B点。

There's all sorts of ways for you to get people who are more permissive, who are more sympathetic to you getting from point A to point B to allow you to do that.

这根本就不是一种很可靠的阻止特定类型交易的方式，对吧？

And it's just not a very robust way of preventing certain types of transactions, right?

我们在内存池完全RBF（Replace-by-Fee）中也看到了这一点。

We saw that with mempool full RBF as well.

我们并不需要整个网络都升级。

We didn't need the entirety of the network to upgrade.

我们只需要哈希算力升级和一小部分人——我记得大约是网络的10%左右——进行升级。

We just needed the hash power to upgrade and a small amount of people, I think it was about 10% or so of the network to upgrade.

然后不管RBF的标志如何，你都能进行RBF交易。

And then regardless of the flag on RBF, you were able to RBF transactions.

就这么简单，对吧？

It was that simple, right?

而且因为它争议不大，所以并没有太多人真正抱怨或对此大做文章。

And because it was not so controversial, not a lot of people really complained or made a big stink about it.

但一旦你把话题转向那些在文化上更具冲突性的事物，比如奥普特和数据嵌入，我们就会遇到更多阻力。

But as soon as you flip the narrative to talking about things that are more culturally, you know, clashing, like Opreter and data embedding, that's where we start to get a lot more friction.

我觉得特别有意思的是，这种文化上的分歧可以一直追溯到以太坊刚诞生的时候，对吧？

And what I find to be really interesting there is that I think that this cultural sort of, you know, divide goes all the way back to when Ethereum first came into existence, right?

我一直认为应该知己知彼。

I've always been of the opinion that you should know thy enemy.

所以我始终保持着密切关注。

So I've kept my ear to the ground.

我甚至还结交了很多ETH领域的朋友，就是为了了解那边的动态，掌握最新情况。

I've even made friends with a lot of people from the ETH space just to see how things are going over there to get a temperature check.

你会发现从文化角度讲，以太坊L2对rollup这类方案接受度要高得多——就是把数据你发布到L1来实现数据可用性。

And what you'll see is that culturally, Ethereum L2s are way more comfortable with things like roll ups where you're posting to L1 for data availability.

你要么发布一个证明，要么发布状态的某个子集到L1，然后锚定到基础链以太坊上。

You're posting like either a proof or you're posting some, you know, subset of the state onto L1 and you're anchoring onto Ethereum, the base chain.

而在比特币这边，我们数据数据数据数据数据数据数据字段。

On Bitcoin, we haven't really done that for our L2s, right?

在闪电网络中，真正发生的状态转换只有两种，如果把HTLC结算算上可能也就三种。

On Lightning, there's only two real estate transitions that are happening, maybe three if you count HTLC settlement.

你有你的通道开启和通道关闭两种情况。

You got your channel open and you got your channel closed.

这是你与L1交互的仅有时刻。

Those are the two times that you interact with L1.

你并没有在链上推送大量任意数据，对吧？

You're not really pushing a whole lot of arbitrary data on chain, right?

所有这些状态机转换的数据都存储在链下。

Of that state, all of that, you know, state machine transition, all of that is being stored off chain.

所以我认为，这种技术文化上的限制正在加剧分歧，导致人们将提高限额视为鼓励而非风险控制。

So this, like, even technical cultural limitation, I think, is driving a lot of the divide and causing people to interpret the opportune limit being raised as, you know, encouraging rather than being a form of harm reduction.

本节目由CoinKite赞助，他们制造了我最爱的比特币硬件钱包Coldcard Q。

This episode is brought to you by CoinKite, the makers of my favorite Bitcoin hardware wallet, the cold card Q.

有些人认为自我托管太难，但这实际上是关于对比特币财富负责，并理解自我托管能带来真正的自由感。

Now some people think self custody is too hard, but it's really about taking responsibility for your Bitcoin wealth and understanding that self custody gives you a true feeling of liberty.

Coldcard Q配备全键盘和大屏幕，具有双重安全元件和真正的物理隔离功能，让你从种子生成到交易签名都能完全通过二维码实现物理隔离操作。

The Coldcard Q has a full keyboard and big screen, it's got two secure elements and a true air gap allowing you to go fully air gapped using QR codes from seed generation to transaction signing.

该设备可使用三节AAA电池供电，甚至无需插电使用。

You can power the device using three AAA batteries so you don't even have to plug it into the wall for power.

你可以轻松搭配PC端的Sparrow钱包或移动端的Nunchuck使用，并能根据需求自定义安全等级和复杂程度。

You can easily use it with Sparrow Wallet for PC or Nunchuck on mobile and you can dial it in to the right level of security and complexity that you choose.

若想要简单设置，只需使用12个助记词和单签名即可。

If you want a simple setup, just use 12 words and single signature.

如需添加密码短语也很简单。

If you want passphrases, easy.

如果想增加多签或联署功能，这些也都支持。

If you want to add multisig or cosigning features, you've got those too.

立即访问coinkite.com，使用优惠码Lovera可享冷钱包及其他设备9折优惠，今天就升级你的自主托管方案吧。

So go to coinkite.com, use code Lovera to get 10% off on your cold card or other devices and level up your self custody today.

现在我们来深入聊聊垃圾信息墙这个话题。

So let's get into the whole spam wall stuff.

显然我们之前已经间接讨论过一些相关内容了。

Obviously, we've been kind of indirectly talking a bit about it.

我们来具体讨论一下比特币中什么行为构成垃圾信息。

Let's talk a bit about what exactly constitutes spam in Bitcoin.

对吧？

Right?

或许你想区分一下——刚才你也稍微提到了——我们可能需要区分内容性垃圾信息本身和真正的技术性拒绝服务垃圾信息。

And maybe you wanna distinguish and you were touching on this a little bit about maybe we have to distinguish here between, let's say, content spam per se and genuine technical DOS spam.

我想另外还有一类情况会被归入这里，比如...

And I guess the other kind of sort of thing that gets thrown in here is like, okay.

有些过滤器涉及俗称的升级钩子功能，这也是这些过滤器存在的另一个原因。

There are filters that relate to what's colloquially known as upgrade hooks, and so that's another reason why these filters exist.

那我们就来聊聊这个话题。

So let's talk a little bit about that.

究竟什么行为在比特币中构成垃圾信息？

What what constitutes spam in Bitcoin?

你对此是怎么考虑的？

How are you thinking about that?

因此，我要预先说明，以下所有观点仅代表我个人看法。

So I will preface everything that I say from here on with in my opinion.

对吧？

Right?

因为这就是我的立场——一切判断都是主观的。

Because that that is that is my stance here is that everything is subjective.

在我看来，嵌入纯粹非货币性质的数据（具体分类标准稍后会讲，某些边缘案例确实存在模糊地带），

So in my opinion, embedding data that is purely non monetary in nature, and I'll get on to the specifics of how I categorize that, it's a bit fuzzy when you get into certain edge cases, right?

但如果交易意图纯粹是非货币性的，这就能作为一个有效的扣分项。

But I think if the intent of the transaction is purely non monetary in nature, that is a fairly good way of adding a point.

对我而言，判定是否属于垃圾信息不是非黑即白的即时判断，而是类似积分系统——当累计超过某个阈值时，被判定为垃圾信息的概率就会大幅上升。

And for me, whether or not something is spam is not a binary decision that I make right off the bat, but more of like a points based system, where if you have a certain amount of points and you exceed some sort of threshold, then now the probability that you're spam is much higher than the probability that you're not.

假设这个任意设定的阈值是10分，

So let's say that this arbitrary threshold is 10 points, right?

比如你嵌入的数据是纯粹非货币性质的（像JPEG图片这类铭文），直接就会扣2分

I think if your data is purely non monetary in nature, it's just embedding like a JPEG, for example, like an inscription, that's gonna be two points right off the bat, right?

我有点怀疑这很可能是垃圾信息。

I'm a little bit suspicious that this is probably spam.

如果你的数据没有促进层级扩展，那就会增加大约3分，对吧？

If your data is not facilitating a layer to scale on, that's going to add like three points, right?

所以现在我有50%的概率认为这是垃圾信息，比如像铭文这样的例子。

So now I'm at 50% probability that this is spam, for like an inscription, for example.

然后我会根据进行这笔交易的人来分配一些分数，对吧？

Then I'm going to assign a few points based on who is making this transaction, right?

这笔交易是来自一个可能只是在测试新平台的比特币用户吗？

Did this transaction come from a Bitcoiner who's maybe just testing out a new platform that exists?

还是来自以太坊领域的人，试图复制以太坊领域已有的东西，对吧？

Did it come from someone who's in the ETH space, who's trying to reproduce something that exists in the ETH space, right?

这方面我举的例子就是BRC20标准。

So an example I'd give there is like the BRC20 standard.

如果你观察BRC20标准的结构方式，它的设计更接近于与以太坊智能合约交互，而不是比特币上会存在的东西。

If you look at how the BRC20 standard is structured, it's structured in a way that more closely resembles interacting with an ETH smart contract than something that would exist on Bitcoin.

所以对于BRC20交易，我要再加3分。

So for a BRC20 transaction, I'm adding three more points.

现在我已经打到8分（满分10分）了，对吧？

Now I'm at eight out of 10, right?

剩下的2分，我认为主要取决于它是否试图在费率基础上与货币交易竞争。

And then the remaining two points, I think, mostly come down to is this trying to compete with monetary transactions on a fee rate basis?

这笔交易支付了每虚拟字节100聪的费用，尽管内存池中位数只有20聪，对吧？

Is this paying a 100 SAP per V byte, you know, fee, even though the median in the mempool is like 20, right?

如果它这么做，那我就认为它具有高度时效性，并且试图在时间和费用两方面都与货币交易竞争。

If it's doing that, then I assume that it is highly time sensitive and it's trying to compete with monetary transactions both in terms of time as well as fee.

是的，现在我已经达到这个阈值了，这就是垃圾信息。

Yes, now I've hit this threshold, this is spam.

我觉得这条界线变得模糊多了。

I think the line becomes a lot fuzzier.

举个例子，我来给你推销这个想法。

For example, let me pitch you this idea.

我有一个SWAFT提供商和一个预映像，对吧？

I have a SWAFT provider and I have a pre image, right?

为了结算交易，必须发布与特定哈希对应的预映像。

And in order to settle a transaction, the preimage has to be released that corresponds to a particular hash.

但你不知道那个哈希对应的预映像是什么，对吧？

But you don't know what the preimage to that hash is, right?

所以我完全可以嵌入一个非常小的JPEG或PNG之类的图像。

So I could just as well embed a tiny, tiny little JPEG or a PNG or what have you.

我可以把它用作哈希的预映像。

I could use that as the pre image to the hash.

然后当你要认领资金时，我在链上发布预映像，这就成了垃圾信息。

And then when you go to claim the funds, I release the pre image on chain and that is now spam.

不过回到我之前说的，如果你有魔法棒，可以神奇地实现某种结果，但实际上你要如何实现。

However, going back to how I said, you know, if you have a magic wand and you can make some sort of outcome happen magically regard to how you would actually make that happen.

如果我有一根魔法棒，可以挥动它说：链上所有垃圾信息立即销毁。

If I had a magic wand where I could wave it and say, Any spam that is on chain instantaneously destroyed.

粉碎了，对吧？

Smithereens, right?

我是不是刚刚阻止了一笔货币交易的完成，而这笔交易直到预映像揭示阶段我才知道是垃圾信息？

Have I not just stopped a monetary transaction from going through, one that I didn't know was spam until the reveal stage for the preimage?

我想我确实阻止了，对吧？

I think that I would have, right?

从这个意义上说，你就是在实施一种特别恶劣的审查制度，至少对比特币精神而言是如此。

And in that sense, you would have been committing a particularly heinous kind of censorship, at least in regards to the Bitcoin ethos.

你阻止了一笔货币交易，仅仅因为促成这笔交易的一个环节恰好暴露了垃圾信息。

You've been stopping a monetary transaction because one step of facilitating that monetary transaction happens to reveal spam.

因此，我通常不愿将自己的主观判断强加于人，去界定什么是垃圾信息、什么不是，并将其转化为实际行动。

For that reason, I'm generally hesitant to try and project my own subjective view on what is spam and what is not spam and translate that to actual action.

我觉得看到一笔交易后感叹'哇，这是垃圾信息'没什么问题。

I think it's fine to look at a transaction and be like, wow, this is spam.

这真的很糟糕。

This really sucks.

对吧？

Right?

我们应该找出是谁在进行这类交易，并尝试鼓励他们以更好的方式进行。

We should figure out who's making these types of transactions, and we should try to encourage them to do them in a better way.

我认为这并不足以激励我们去阻止他们。

I don't think that it necessarily creates enough incentive for us to try and stop them.

那么我这么说是什么意思呢？

So what do I mean by that?

我认为Citria就是这方面的一个绝佳例子。

I think Citria is a great example of this.

对吧？

Right?

Citria经常被当作提高操作码返回限制的理由。

Citria gets thrown around a lot as the reason why the op return limit was raised.

现在，先不论这种说法完全不准确，我们来谈谈Citria的正义交易要求是如何运作的。

Now, setting aside that that's completely inaccurate, let's talk about how Citria's justice transaction requirements play out.

他们可以使用标准的80字节OP_RETURN，然后伪造两个Taproot公钥，因为他们有略多于80字节的数据。

They could use a standard 80 byte op return and then they could have two fake taproot pubkeys because they have a little bit more data than 80 bytes.

这对Citria来说完全可行，对吧？

And that would work just fine for Citria, right?

无论他们使用80字节OP_RETURN加两个伪造的Taproot公钥，还是使用非标准OP_RETURN，对他们而言没有任何区别。

It doesn't make any difference to them whatsoever if they use an 80 byte op return and two fake Taproot pubkeys or if they use a non standard op return.

真正受影响的是公共节点资源。

What it does make a difference to is the common, the public resources of nodes.

对吧？

Right?

显然我更愿意存储100字节的非标准OP_RETURN，因为它不会永久污染UTXO集。

Obviously, I would prefer to store a 100 byte non standard op return because it doesn't enter and, you know, you know, pollute the UTXO set forevermore.

尽管这只是交易的边缘案例，我仍想从两者中选择技术更优的方案。

Even though this is an edge case of a transaction, I still want to choose the technically superior solution out of the two.

对吧？

Right?

然而，很多人并不这么看。

However, a lot of people didn't see it that way.

他们认为这是在提高交易上限，相当于在头顶挂了个霓虹灯招牌写着'欢迎来垃圾邮件攻击我'。

They saw it as, you know, you're raising the upper turn limit, so therefore you're putting a neon sign above your head that says, please spam me.

我不这么认为。

I don't see it that way.

对吧？

Right?

我觉得这个道理在现实世界也同样适用。

And I think we can relate this to the real world as well.

比如九十年代末，巴西某航空公司的一架航班。

In, you know, the late nineties, there was a flight operated by a Brazilian airline.

非常不幸的是有人在机上吸烟了。

And very tragically, somebody had smoked a cigarette.

那架航班是允许乘客在机上吸烟的。

This was a flight that allowed you to smoke on board.

有人抽了烟却没完全熄灭，就把烟头丢进了洗手间的垃圾桶。

Somebody had smoked a cigarette and they didn't put it out fully and they put it into the waste bin in the bathroom.

结果洗手间的垃圾桶起火，整个洗手间都烧了起来，最终飞机和机上所有乘客都在坠机中遇难。

And consequently, the waste bin in the bathroom lit up in flames, the bathroom lit up in flames and, you know, the plane and all of its occupants on board perished in a crash.

此后不久，FAA开始要求不论航班是否允许吸烟，都必须在实验室配备烟灰缸。

Now shortly after that, the FAA started requiring that regardless of whether or not you allowed smoking on your flight, you would have to include in the laboratory an ashtray.

现在你们采取的态度和Knott阵营很多人对提高回合上限的看法一样，可能会说FAA这明显是在鼓励机上吸烟。

Now, you took the approach that a lot of people from the Knott's camp have taken to the upper turn limit being raised, you might say, well, the FAA is clearly endorsing that you smoke on the plane.

不然他们为什么要在飞机上放烟灰缸呢？

Why else would they put an ashtray on board?

对吧？

Right?

但我觉得如果退一步看全局，就会发现FAA只是考虑到了人类行为特点。

But I think if you look and zoom out and look at the bigger picture, you would see that what the FAA was simply doing was taking into account human behavior.

即便某些行为被禁止，仍有可能有人试图钻空子。

That even if something is not allowed, it's very possible that somebody will try to skirt the rules.

如果他们真这么做了，而你又没提供一个危害较小的替代方案，他们可能会无意或故意地做出最糟糕的行为——比如试图把抽过的烟藏进实验室的垃圾桶里。

And if they do, if you don't provide them a less harmful alternative, they may either unintentionally or intentionally end up doing the worst possible thing that they could do in that scenario, which is trying to hide the lit cigarette that they smoked in the laboratory by stuffing it into the waste bin.

也许我们会重蹈覆辙。

And maybe we get a repeat of the incident that happened.

所以我认为，这很大程度上取决于你的意识形态倾向。

So, I think, you know, a lot of this comes down to what your sort of ideology is.

你是目的论者吗？

Are you teleological?

你是否认为物体因其目的而存在？

Do you believe that an object exists because of its purpose?

还是说你是工具主义者？

Or are you an instrumentalist?

你是否认为我们只是发现了某种用途并将其强加给物体？

Do you believe that we have found a purpose and ascribed it to the object?

以这把叉子为例，它末端为什么会有这些齿尖？

Take this fork for instance Does it have these tines on the end?

因为正是这些设计让我们能用它刺穿肉块进食。

Because that's what facilitates us using it to stab meat and eat food with it.

还是说我们参考了农用叉的形态？

Or did we look at a farming fork, right?

我们是否观察过其他类似系统——比如用来串肉在火上烤的签子——然后灵光一现：等等，我们可以把它做成手持版本？

Did we look at other similar systems like a skewer that we were putting our meat on and roasting over a fire and say, wait, we could use this in a handheld format.

叉子的形态是否源于它比理论上更优的方案（比如叉勺）更容易制造？

Did the form factor of the fork arise because this was easier to manufacture than other potentially superior solutions like a spork?

对吧？

Right?

我发现自己属于工具主义阵营。

I find myself in the instrumentalist camp.

我认为我们创造物品是出于各种混杂的动机，是多种激励因素推拉角力的结果。

I think that we create objects because of a smorgasbord of reasons, because a bunch of incentives that are pushing us and pulling us one way or another.

而当我们拥有某个实用物品后，才会事后赋予它某种用途。

And then once we have something that is useful, we ascribe a purpose to it after the fact.

我认为比特币也是如此。

I think Bitcoin is the same.

对吧？

Right?

中本聪最初旨在创建一个极其稳健的数据库，用于实现货币转账，对吧？

Satoshi set out to create a very, very resilient database that would allow you to conduct monetary transfers, right?

但这并不意味着比特币只能按照中本聪设想的方式进行严格的货币交易。

But that doesn't mean that Bitcoin can only conduct strictly monetary transactions in the way that Satoshi outlined.

中本聪没有讨论过分层扩展。

Satoshi doesn't talk about scaling in layers.

论文中并未提及这一点。

That's not mentioned in the paper.

白皮书中不存在闪电网络。

Lightning doesn't exist in the white paper.

但这并不意味着闪电网络不属于比特币，或闪电网络在比特币中没有立足之地。

That doesn't mean, right, that Lightning is not Bitcoin or that Lightning has no place in Bitcoin.

同样地，我认为像Citria这样的系统试图从基于以太坊EVM的链上吸引用户，并将他们引入一个以比特币为锚定的平台，这正是比特币极简主义的传统定义。

Similarly, I think systems like Citria that aim to try and steal away users from Ethereum EVM based chains and bring them to a platform that is anchored in Bitcoin is the traditional definition of being a Bitcoin maximalist.

比特币是我们真正需要的唯一区块链，可以让所有这些系统运作，让它们都能接入比特币，而不需要作为独立实体存在。

That Bitcoin is the only blockchain that we actually need to make all of these systems work, that we can have them all plug into Bitcoin, and that they don't need to exist as independent entities.

对吧？

Right?

我们并没有五个互联网。

We don't have five Internets.

我们只有一个互联网，所有这些系统都接入互联网，将其作为通信层来连接和整合一切。

We have one Internet, And we have all of these systems that plug into the Internet and use it as the communication layer that brings and connects everything together.

开放时间戳并非货币协议，但它对比特币项目极为有用，特别是当你不想让某个特定日期发布的软件被人篡改时。

Open timestamps is not a monetary protocol, but it's intensely useful for Bitcoin projects, specifically because you don't want to have a piece of software that is released on a particular date and then somebody went and tampered with it.

对吧？

Right?

因此，能够时间戳记录某款软件在特定时间点发布并签名，这对比特币非常有用。

So being able to time stamp that a particular piece of software was released and signed at a point in time is very useful to Bitcoin.

我认为尽管它在本质上不涉及货币，但在我判断是否为垃圾信息的标准中，它只获得了少量分数。

And I would argue that despite being non monetary in nature, it only earns itself a few points on my is it spam scale.

因此，它不属于垃圾信息。

And therefore, it's not spam.

我想，每当有人试图用三秒钟的简单思考就向你推销他们的评判标准时，你应该立即怀疑他们的偏见已经蒙蔽了判断力，使他们无法客观审视某件事并自问：这对比特币有害吗？

I think, you know, whenever somebody is selling you their, you know, criteria as being a simple or no answer based on three seconds of thought, you should be immediately suspicious that their bias has clouded their judgment and their ability to objectively look at something and say, is this detrimental to Bitcoin?

它是否试图竞争并排挤货币交易？

Does it compete and try to crowd out monetary transactions?

它是否由那些在游戏中没有利益相关的人创建？这些人是否不会因比特币变得更好而受益？

Is it being made by somebody who has no skin in the game, who who doesn't, you know, benefit from Bitcoin becoming better?

同样地，这些人是否也不会因比特币变得更糟而受损？

And also, similarly, isn't hurt by Bitcoin becoming worse?

我认为所有这些因素需要融合成一个整体视角，才能让你判断这是否属于垃圾信息。

I think all of those factors need to be fused together into a holistic viewpoint that then informs you on whether or not this is spam.

我不认为这件事可以通过自动化方式完成。

And I don't think that that's something you could do on an automated basis.

对吧？

Right?

如果NOTS设置了一个过滤器来检查enlock时间是否等于21，那并不是在检查那些标明enlock时间为21的交易背景或意图。

If NOTS, you know, has a filter in place for checking if enlock time is equal to 21, that's not checking the context or the intent of a transaction that says enlock time 21.

它只是查看交易内容中那个特定字段的值，对吧？

It's just looking at the contents of the transaction in terms of that specific field, Right?

而且这严重简化了判断一笔交易对比特币是好是坏的标准。

And it it's just a gross oversimplification of whether or not a transaction is good or bad for for Bitcoin.

因为归根结底，如果一笔交易支付了手续费，我认为它最初就是善意的，在证明有罪之前都是清白的。

Because at the end of the day, if a transaction is paying fees, I view it as starting out from a place of good, innocent until proven guilty.

好的。

Okay.

那么按我的理解，在你看来PLC20是垃圾信息，但单独的JPEG铭文不算垃圾信息。

So as I read you then, PLC 20 is spam, but JPEG inscriptions on their own are not spam in your view.

那邮票呢？

What about stamps?

邮票是垃圾信息吗？

Is stamps spam?

邮票绝对是垃圾信息。

Stamps is absolutely spam.

我认为如果没有铭文为它们铺路，邮票实际上不会存在。

I think stamps actually would not exist without inscriptions having paved the road for them.

如果你看看Mike in Space，他经常谈论他如何对铭文作为可修剪数据持有非常对抗性的观点。

If you look at Mike in Space, he routinely talks about how, you know, he has this very, like, confrontational view of inscriptions being prunable data.

他说，修剪这个。

He says, you know, prune this.

就像，你无法摆脱我。

Like, you can't get rid of me.

就像，我要留在这里。

Like, I'm here to stay.

这几乎是一种非常叛逆的数据嵌入方式。

It's like almost a very rebellious way of going about data embedding.

正因如此，我认为他们的意图非常明确——我们想在比特币上嵌入任意数据，目的就是要激怒你。

So for that reason, you know, I think the intent there is very clearly we want to embed arbitrary data on Bitcoin, and we want to do it to piss you off.

就像某个愚蠢的游客可能会跑到世界奇迹之一去涂鸦自己的名字一样，对吧？

In a similar way to how a, you know, silly tourist might go to one of the wonders of the world and scribble their name on it, right?

这种行为之所以存在，是因为他们试图利用这个美丽的公共资源并破坏它。

It's something that exists because they're trying to, you know, use this very beautiful public resource and degrade it.

他们就是想在上面涂鸦，明白吗？

They're trying to, you know, do graffiti on it, right?

这才是对当前情况更直白的解读，因为他们毫不掩饰意图，动机也毫无模糊空间。

That's a far more straightforward interpretation of what's going on, because they're not trying to hide their intent, and there's no ambiguity in terms of their intent.

而像铭文和来回传输图片这类行为，我完全可以归因于人们犯傻，在比特币上浪费钱财。

Whereas with inscriptions and like transferring, you know, pictures back and forth, I could just as easily ascribe that to people being stupid and wasting their money on Bitcoin.

他们不过是在尝试听说过的这种新潮流罢了。

You know, they're trying out this new fad that they heard about.

但我不认为铭文可能造成的损害程度必然会被社区所反映出来。

But I don't think that the amount of damage that inscriptions can do is necessarily, you know, something that's reflected by the community.

我认为很多时候，社区判断某事物是否有害的标准，就是简单对比它在ETH生态中的类似情况，对吧？

I think that a lot of the times, the yardstick by which the community uses to determine if something is harmful or not is simply by comparing its similarity to what happens in the ETH space, right?

以太坊某种程度上用NFT、加密猫和各种愚蠢的链上游戏把整条链搞爆炸了。

Ethereum kind of like blew up the whole, you know, chain with NFTs and like CryptoKitties and all of these other like stupid kind of, you know, on chain games.

所以当我们看到比特币上出现类似的东西时，会立即产生一种本能的厌恶反应，想要拒绝它。

So when we see something like that, or something that's similar to it coming up on Bitcoin, we immediately have this, like, very, very visceral reaction of disgust of, like, you know, we want to reject this.

我们想把这些东西挡在我们的链之外。

We want to keep this off our chain.

把这些垃圾带到别处去。

Take that crap somewhere else.

对吧？

Right?

但我不认为这是一种非常客观的看待方式，尤其是考虑到铭文给矿工带来了多少收入。

But I don't think that that is a very objective way of looking at it, especially when you consider how much revenue to miners came from inscriptions.

我记得Peter Todd在Luke提出的过滤铭文的PR中提到，这类交易可能很愚蠢，但它们目前占矿工收入的相当大比例。

I think Peter Todd was saying, like, in the PR that Luke had raised to filter out inscriptions, these types of transactions might be stupid, but they correspond to a pretty large proportion of miner revenue right now.

所以矿工们没有动力去支持这类改动，而且就算KC下周推送一个稍微修改信封格式或者彻底移除信封的更新，实际上也改变不了什么？

So the incentives are not in favor for miners to go along with something like this, nor is it really going to make all that much of a difference if KC pushes an update week that changes the envelope slightly or maybe gets rid of the envelope entirely?

对吧？

Right?

这永远会是一场猫捉老鼠的游戏。

It's always going to be this cat and mouse game.

而我们都知道，市场对这种愚蠢交易存在经济需求。

And what we know is that there's economic demand to do stupid transactions like this.

那为什么不让它成为一个自我解决的问题呢？

So why not let this be a self solving problem?

对不对？

Right?

如果你看一家公司，这家公司完全无利可图，他们生产的产品根本没人要，长期来看这家公司会怎样？

If you look at a company and this company is purely unprofitable, all they ever do is make a product that nobody wants, what happens to that company in the long term?

他们会破产。

They go bankrupt.

它们不复存在。

They cease to exist.

我们为何必须采取干预主义立场，声称必须介入并摧毁这个初生的生态系统，而它长期存活的概率本就很低？

Why must we take an interventionalist standpoint and say we must come in and destroy this fledgling ecosystem when the probability that it survives in the long term is already low?

对吧？

Right?

看看那些交易符文币的投机者，他们全都损失惨重。

If you look at the degens who have been trading runes, they're all hurting badly.

其中许多人已经损失了五位数甚至更多的比特币。

Many of them have lost 5 figures, if not more, in terms of Bitcoin.

他们很可能不会再来参与下一轮的符文狂热了。

They're probably not going to come back for the next season of, you know, Rune mania.

他们会深受打击。

They're going to be hurting.

他们会夹着尾巴逃走，很可能回到其他链上继续炒垃圾币，因为那样成本更低。

They're going to have their tail tucked between their legs, and they'll probably go back to other chains to do their shitcoining because it's going to be cheaper.

机会成本会更低。

It's going to have a lower opportunity cost.

对吧？

Right?

如果你今天在垃圾币上亏了点以太坊，那也只是亏了点以太坊而已。

If you lose a little bit of Ethereum today shitcoining, you've only lost a little bit of Ethereum.

但如果你在垃圾币上亏了一大堆比特币，那你就失去了最硬通的货币，失去了过程中最好的价值储存手段。

If you do if you lose a bunch of Bitcoin while shitcoining, you've lost the hardest money, the best store of value in the process.

你的机会成本是巨大的。

Your opportunity cost is massive.

所以我觉得特别讽刺的是，我见过这么多自由主义者，但自由主义最基本的意识形态——只要不立即对他人造成伤害，就应保障个人自愿行事的自由——他们却不懂。

So again, I think it's really funny to me that, you know, there are so many libertarians that I've met, and yet the very basic ideology of libertarianism and having this individual freedom to do things in a voluntary way, so long as it does not result in an immediate harm to somebody else.

我想那句老话说得好：你挥拳的权利止于我的鼻尖。

I think the common saying is, Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

除非你能向我证明铭文正在造成必须遏止的、且具有存在性威胁的即时伤害。

Unless you can demonstrate to me that there is immediate harm that inscriptions are bringing that we must stop, and that is existential.

我仍然不认为这个问题严重到需要我们立即采取行动，尤其是当解决方案可能比问题本身更糟糕时。

I remain unconvinced that it's a big enough problem that we have to, you know, spring forward and act, especially if the cure is potentially worse than the disease.

我明白了。

I see.

现在我听到的另一个论点是，链上所有这些垃圾信息正在让比特币作为货币变得更糟。

Now another argument I've seen from people is, okay, all this spam on the chain is making Bitcoin worse as money.

因此，人们应该努力阻止这种现象，并实施过滤机制或可能通过共识规则变更来制止这些行为。

And for that reason, people should try to work really hard to stop it, and, should implement filters or potentially consensus rule changes to, stop these things.

我想他们可能还会附加另一层论点说，有些矿工是短视的。

And I guess the other they they might layer on another level of argument to say, well, some of these miners are short term focused.

他们没有考虑长远利益，在他们看来作为网络节点运营者，应该...我不知道该怎么说。

They're not thinking about the long term, and it's on them in their view as the node runners of the network, let's say, to I don't know.

有些人认为这是在教育矿工什么才是合适的货币交易。

Some of them see that as teaching the miners what is appropriate monetary transactions.

其他人可能会将其表述为你必须捍卫货币用途。

Other people might frame it more like you have to sort of defend the monetary use.

这就是我试图理解的方式。

That's that's as I'm trying to understand it.

也许人们会说，不，斯蒂芬。

Maybe people say, no, Stephane.

你在曲解他们的意思，但至少试着回应一下，就像我...是的。

You're straw manning them, but try and respond to that at least as I've Yeah.

所以我将

So I'll

我会尽力参与讨论，尽我所能。

I'll try to engage with that, you know, as best as I can.

我认为其中一个促成因素实际上是Lightning Labs一直在构建的东西。

So I think one of the contributing factors here is actually what, you know, Lightning Labs has been building.

我认为今天链上活动减少的很大一部分原因是闪电网络非常成功，它分流了原本会在链上发生的两位数百分比的交易。

I think a great portion of why we don't see as much on chain activity today is because Lightning has been so successful that it's offloaded double digit percentages of transactions that ordinarily would have happened on chain.

这就是为什么我们看到区块并不总是满的。

And that's why we're seeing blocks that are not consistently full.

这就是为什么我们看到每虚拟字节(vbyte)的费率如此之低。

That's why we're seeing one set per V byte fee rates.

要知道，如果我昨天才接触比特币，我第一个问题肯定是：作为被广泛采用的货币交易网络，为什么费用这么低廉？

You know, if I got into Bitcoin yesterday, I think the first question I would ask is for a such a widely adopted network that's used for monetary transactions, how come it's so cheap?

对吧？

Right?

通常来说，当某种商品需求旺盛时，价格就会上涨。

Typically, you see lots and lots of demand for commodity, you see the price go up.

区块空间也不例外。

Block space is no different.

它就是一种商品。

It's a commodity.

因此当这种商品价格低迷时，我认为这传递出两个信号：一是供应量相对需求过剩，二是手续费市场机制不够完善或不够健全。

So if the price of that commodity is low, that communicates to me two things that there is a large amount of supply relative to demand and that there is an insufficient or, you know, not robust enough fee market.

关于第二点，我认为手续费市场不够活跃的最简单解释就是：大多数人把比特币更多作为价值储存手段而非交易媒介来使用。

I think for number two, the easiest explanation for why we don't see a robust fee market is simply because a lot of people use Bitcoin more as a store of value than a medium of exchange.

这并非巧合。

And that's not a coincidence.

对吧？

Right?

直到最近我们才看到Square推出了他们的集成服务，允许商家接受比特币支付。

Only recently did we see that Square had rolled out their integration to allow taking Bitcoin for merchants.

而且，在闪电网络出现之前，这对我来说一直是个痛点——商家为什么要接受比特币支付？他们得等好几个确认才能知道钱确实到账了，还得担心我会不会双花，拿着刚买的鞋子和本该支付给他们的比特币跑路。

And also, prior to Lightning becoming a thing, this was even something that was a sticking point for me, which was why are merchants going to take Bitcoin when they're gonna have to wait several confirmations to know that it's actually in their wallet and that I'm not gonna go and double spend them and, you know, run off with the shoes that I just bought and also the Bitcoin that I supposedly paid them.

闪电网络推出后，它为商家创造了完全不同的用户体验。

Once Lightning got introduced, you know, it it created a very different UX for merchants.

就像我之前提到的，从功能存在到被采用之间存在滞后期，这种延迟在链上造成了一个平静期——很多人正在学习使用闪电网络，很多人正在搭建路由节点，很多商家也在尝试接入闪电网络，这些都导致链上活动量承受下行压力。

And I think just as I mentioned before with there being a latency period, a lag before features are going from existed to adopted, that latency has created a bit of a lull on chain where there is a lot of activity from people learning how to use Lightning, a lot of people who are spinning up their routing nodes, a lot of merchants who are also trying to figure out how to take Lightning and therefore creating a downwards pressure for how much on chain activity there is.

随之而来的，矿工们会想尽一切办法寻找手续费来源。

And then subsequently, miners are going to be trying to look for fees in any possible way that they can.

我记得最盛行的一个阴谋论是说KC被矿池收买，人为制造链上交易的外部需求，因为实际发生的交易实在太少了。

I remember one of the most prevailing, you know, conspiracy theories out there was that KC was paid off by mining pools in order to create a demand that was exogenous for transactions on chain because there were so few that were happening.

但从长远来看，我认为这个问题会通过聚合交易得到解决。

But in the long term, I think that this will be solved through aggregation.

那么我这话是什么意思呢？

So what do I mean by that?

很明显，假设闪电网络不存在，比如我们俩在链上进行交易——想象一下我们出去共进晚餐，喝了几杯后账单总计100美元。

Obviously, if, you know, Stefan, if you and I were transacting on chain, let's just say that we lived in a world in which lightning didn't exist and we went out to dinner, we had a few drinks and the bill ended up coming out to about a $100.

而我想把欠你的那份餐费转给你。

And I wanted to send you that money that I owed for my portion of the bill.

我可以通过链上转账给你价值50美元的比特币。

I could send you those $50 worth of Bitcoin on chain.

如果我们把这个交易量乘以Venmo的规模，我预计链上手续费可能会达到每虚拟字节100聪，甚至更高。

And if we multiplied that by, let's say, the transaction volume that Venmo enjoys, I would expect the on chain fees to sit somewhere around a 100 sats per v byte, maybe even higher.

这意味着这笔交易可能相当昂贵——链上转账成本可能比银行电汇的30多美元手续费还要高。

That could translate to a fairly expensive transaction where it might more expensive for me to send you Bitcoin on chain than to do a wire transfer and pay the 30 odd dollars that my bank would be charging me.

在我看来，这将是比特币的失败。

That, in my opinion, would be a failing of Bitcoin.

对吧？

Right?

然而，这也将证明区块空间的自由市场运作正常且健康。

However, it would also be demonstrating that the free market for block space is functioning properly and it is healthy.

那么解决方案是什么？

So what's the solution to this?

如果我们无法在个人基础上进行交易，也无法重建类似Venmo的点对点支付系统，那我们还能做什么？

If you and I can't transact on an individual basis and sort of recreate a Venmo like peer to peer payment system, what is there left for us to do?

我认为一个可能的解决方案是Arc，对吧？

I think that one particular path would be Arc, right?

这些系统建立在比特币之上作为一个层级，聚合人们的交易，使其在链下进行，必要时可以单方面退出回到链上，同时允许他们在过渡期间节省费用。

Where you've got these systems that build on top of Bitcoin as a layer that aggregate people's transactions, making them off chain with a possible unilateral exit if they need to go back on chain, but allowing them to save fees in the interim.

那么我支付一笔可能昂贵的交易费用登上Ark，在Ark上进行大量交易——即使不是成千上万笔交易——可能就不会显得那么疯狂了。

Then it might not be so insane for me to pay one transaction, which might be expensive, to board the Ark, do a bunch of transactions, hundreds if not thousands of transactions on the Ark.

最后，如果我对比特币失去信心，或者需要将部分比特币兑换成法币，而我使用的交易所不支持ARC或没有ARC集成，那么我可能需要支付第二笔昂贵的交易费用。

And then finally, I, you know, lost my conviction in Bitcoin or if I needed to sell some of my Bitcoin for fiat and the exchange that I'm using doesn't take ARC or doesn't have ARC integration, then I might pay a second transaction that's expensive.

你可能会发现这与闪电网络有相似之处。

And you might be seeing a similarity here with Lightning.

我认为所有这些扩展系统、这些层级都将促成稳健的费用市场，使货币交易得以持续进行。

I think all of these types of scaling systems, these types of layers would allow there to be a robust fee market that allows for monetary transactions to still happen.

我们只需要采用更高效的工程方法。

We just have to take a more efficient engineering approach here.

与其让用户单独提交交易并逐笔支付费用，不如让他们接入二层网络，在那里完成全部或大部分交易，节省大量费用，最终可能只需支付一笔退出交易的手续费。

Rather than having individual users submit transactions and paying fees on an individual basis, on a per event basis, we would instead have them get onboarded to a layer two, do all of their transactions or at least a majority of them there, saving tons of fees in the process, and then maybe paying one exit transaction worth of fees.

从这个角度看，我认为这很容易与传统银行业务竞争——后者通常要向商户收取3%的交易额手续费，还会因退单等问题产生更高成本。

In that sense, I think it's very easy to compete then with traditional banking, which can easily cost 3% of the volume to the merchant, right, and can also cost merchants significantly more through things like chargebacks as well.

如果我们在Arc或闪电网络这类系统上进行商户交易，货币用例将更有可能盛行并得到保护，同时还能形成天然具备防垃圾邮件功能的健壮费用市场。

I think if we're doing transactions with merchants on systems like Arc or systems like, you know, Lightning, then it's much more likely that monetary use cases will prevail and be protected while also having a robust fee market that naturally is like an immune system to spam.

对吧？

Right?

因为作为垃圾信息发送者，你并不是来与货币交易竞争的。

Because as a spammer, you're not here to try and compete with monetary transactions.

你试图寻找最低廉的手续费率。

You're trying to find the bottom of the barrel fee rates.

你想抢占那些极其便宜的区块空间。

You're trying to buy up the block space that is very, very cheap.

就像ASIC矿工采购电力一样，对吧？

You're like a ASIC miner in terms of buying electricity, right?

ASIC矿工不会特意选择电力成本极高的司法管辖区运营。

ASIC miners don't go out of their way to operate out of jurisdictions that have very high electricity costs, no.

他们会寻求极低的电力成本，甚至在某些情况下争取免费电力。

They seek out very low electricity costs, in some cases free electricity costs, if they can get it.

如果能与水力发电站合作，或找到天然气田并自带基础设施就地发电。

If they can partner up with a hydroelectric dam, if they can find a natural gas deposit and bring their own infrastructure and run their own generators and generate their own power on-site.

他们就会选择这样做。

They're going to do that instead.

垃圾信息发送者也毫无二致。

Spammers are no different.

垃圾邮件发送者也在寻找最低的手续费率。

Spammers are looking for bottom of the barrel fee rates.

他们寻找无人问津的区块空间，并试图安排交易时间以便未来某个时刻能被打包进区块。

They're looking for block space that nobody else wants, and they're trying to time their transactions so that they can get into blocks at some point in the future.

但他们并不特别注重时效性。

But they're not necessarily super time sensitive.

我要说BRC20是这个通用经验法则的例外。

I will say that BRC 20 is exception to this general heuristic.

但你知道，我们本质上是在讨论两种完全不同的交易者，对吧？

But, you know, we're talking about two different kinds of transactors, fundamentally, right?

垃圾邮件发送者并不把这视为价值转移。

The spammers are not looking at this as a value transfer.

他们不认为这是有截止期限、必须在特定时间前完成的事情。

They're not looking at this as something that has a deadline that they want to get done by a certain point in time.

他们采取的是极其长远的策略：我只想以最低成本把数据上链，因为永久存储数据永远比每月向AWS支付云存储费用更划算。

They have a very, very, very, very long term based approach in terms of, okay, I just want to get this data on chain at the cheapest possible rate because storing data permanently is always going to be a better value proposition than paying on a monthly basis to AWS for cloud storage.

对吧？

Right?

要知道，作为一个希望数据永久保存的人，一次性支付——而且最好是尽可能少付——永远对我更有利。

You know, it's always going to be in my favor, as somebody who wants my data to be there perpetually, to pay once and, you know, ideally pay as little as possible.

基于所有这些原因，我认为垃圾信息不会挤占货币交易的空间。

So for all of those reasons, I don't think that spam is going to crowd out monetary transactions.

我觉得情况恰恰相反。

I think it's a little bit backwards instead.

我认为如果市场上货币交易需求不足，我们就会看到区块空间商品市场的低效，最终这些空间会被那些只想购买最便宜区块空间的参与者占据。

I think that if there aren't enough monetary transaction demand in the market, then we see the inefficiency of the block space commodity market, which then ends up being filled by actors who are looking to purchase the cheapest possible block space.

但如果你消除了最廉价的区块空间，开始将费用分摊到更长的时间段里进行摊销，长远来看这自然就变成了一个小问题，你不需要采取干预措施就能实现。

But if you get rid of the cheapest possible block space and you start sharing fees over a longer period of time, you start amortizing it, then it becomes a very small problem in the long run naturally and you don't need to be an interventionalist for that to occur.

现在，我觉得我有点...我刚刚想到关于BRC20的另一点，就像你说的，我也看到过这种评论——实际上铭文很快就会被高价挤出市场。

Now, I think the I'm just losing my, I'm just thinking so one other point with the BRC 20, as you said, I think it's and this is I've seen this comment as well that inscriptions actually get priced out pretty quickly.

对吧？

Right?

比如，一旦出现真正的货币需求，铭文就显得太昂贵了，他们根本负担不起。

Like, as soon as there's real monetary demand, inscriptions are like, it's just way too expensive for them to do that.

但可能让很多人愤怒的一点，至少在2023年底到2024年初这段时间，就是那个BRC20的竞争性铸造过程，这个你刚才也提到了。

But maybe one thing that got a lot of people angry at least in, let's say, late twenty twenty three, early twenty four, around there, is that there was this whole b r c twenty competitive mint process, right, which you touched on.

据我理解，这个过程大概分为三个阶段，也可能是两个阶段。

And my understanding is that there was, like, a three stage process to that or two stage.

我记得大概是先部署，然后铸造之类的流程。

I think it was, like, deploy and then mint or something like this.

但关键是当时有大量用户试图让自己的交易进入下一个区块。

But the point is, like, there was a lot of people trying to get their transaction into the next block.

由于所谓的竞争性铸造机制，导致手续费被推高到天价。

And because they were because of so called the competitive mint process, that was bidding the fees to the to the moon.

对吧？

Right?

那时候我们看到的手续费，每虚拟字节的SAT计价简直高得离谱。

Like, we were seeing, like, ridiculously high SATs per V Bite fees.

主观来说，我认为这正是激怒了许多非阵营人士的原因。

And I subjective, but I think that's what got a lot of the not camp people angry.

我自己对此也有些恼火，因为我觉得，

And I was kind of annoyed about that too because I thought, hey.

我们的货币网络正在被削弱。

Like, this money our monetary network is being degraded.

当然，我当时确实在使用闪电网络，但人们有这样的担忧：

Now, of course, yes, I was using Lightning, but there were kind of concerns that people had that, hey.

手续费高得让新人甚至难以开始使用闪电网络，诸如此类的问题。

It's hard for people to even start using Lightning because the fees are so high, this kind of thing.

确实如此。

For sure.

而且我确信你在闪电网络领域——当手续费急剧飙升时，大量闪电节点会强制关闭，这又引发了其他问题，这类情况你应该了解。

There were and I'm sure you're in the Lightning world, so there was this whole argument of, like, when fees spike so quickly, a bunch of lightning nodes just kind of force close, and that causes other issues, you know, that kind of thing.

我认为其中部分问题已经或即将通过零手续费锚点方案解决，不过也许你想详细谈谈这个。

I think some of that has been is or is going to be resolved with, like, the anchor zero fee anchor stuff, but maybe you wanna touch on that.

当然。

Sure.

是的。

Yeah.

正如你所提到的，BRC 20系统的设计在经济模式上与以太坊非常相似。

So as you mentioned, you know, the BRC 20 system is designed in a way that it's economically very similar to Ethereum.

我常说知己知彼。

And I always say know thy enemy.

在以太坊的世界里，如果你观察一些手续费率飙升最严重的时期，很大程度上是由于类似的部署合约——那些带有铸币功能的垃圾币。

And in Ethereum's world, if you look at some of the periods of the highest fee rate spikes, it was largely due to very similar deployment contracts where you'd have a shitcoin that would have a mint function.

一旦合约部署完成，人们就会尽可能频繁地调用那个铸币函数。

Once the contract was deployed, people then slam that mint function as much as possible.

你知道在以太坊上——或许你不知道，因为你不用它——但我曾经有很多朋友在这个领域，他们做NFT交易之类的。

And as you know in Ethereum, or maybe you don't know, because you don't use it, but I I used to, you know, have a lot of friends who were in this space who did, like, NFT trading or whatever.

他们教会了我一些关于以太坊的事情。

They taught me a few things about Ethereum.

他们教我的其中一件事就是，在以太坊上你可以发起那笔交易。

And one of the things that they taught me was, you know, in Ethereum, you can make that transaction.

你可以提交它。

You can submit it.

交易可以被接受，如果在L2上会被排序，在基础链上则直接确认。

The transaction can be accepted, sequenced if it's on a L2 or just confirmed on base chain.

然后什么都没发生，因为合约状态完全由交易顺序强制执行，对吧？

And then nothing happens because the contract state is entirely enforced by what's going on in terms of ordering, right?

所以如果你，Stefan Lovera，在以太坊上提交了铸币交易也没用。

So it doesn't matter if you, Stefan Lovera, submitted a minting transaction on Ethereum.

如果我在以太坊上提交了支付更高费用的交易，最终我的交易会比你的先被智能合约处理。

If I submit a transaction on Ethereum that paid a higher fee and then I ended up getting processed by that smart contract first before you.

所以你已经支付了，可能很高的费用，因为你正在四处观望。

So you you've paid, you know, potentially high fee because you're looking at you're looking around.

你看着内存池中的平均费率水平，然后支付一个与之相当的金额。

You're looking at the median fee rates that are going on in the mempool, and you're gonna pay something that's comparable.