量子恐惧、不确定性和怀疑论与詹姆斯·奥布莱恩 SLP721

我们完全没有看到任何依据表明这件事即将发生。

We've seen no basis whatsoever that this is anywhere near around the corner.

在我的想法中，我们完全没有看到任何依据表明这件事距离我们还有十年、二十年。

We've seen no basis whatsoever in my thinking that this is a decade away, two decades away.

大家好，欢迎回到斯蒂芬·洛韦拉的播客。

Hi, everyone, and welcome back to Stefan Lovera podcast.

今天，我们将讨论量子计算是否是骗局，再次做客节目的嘉宾是詹姆斯·奥布莱恩。

Today, we're gonna be discussing whether quantum is BS, and rejoining me on the show is James OB or James O'Byrne.

他是一位资深的比特币开发者，长期专注于托管方面的研究，也是Op Vault提案的创建者，拥有多种不同的观点。

He is a long time Bitcoin developer, has been working focused on the custody side of things also, and was the creator of the Op Vault proposal, has lots of different views.

今天，我们主要聊聊量子计算，但也许也会涉及一些其他话题，比如契约以及协议的一般性讨论。

Today, we'll mainly chat on the Quantum stuff, but maybe we'll get into some of the other, you know, covenants and general kind of call and protocol discussion.

不过，首先欢迎你回到节目，能给我们简单介绍一下你对量子计算的看法吗？

But, yeah, first of all, welcome back to the show and, you know, give us your overview on, quantum stuff.

量子计算和比特币之间到底有什么关系？

What what what is the deal with this quantum computing and Bitcoin?

嘿。

Hey.

谢谢，斯蒂芬。

Thanks, Stefan.

很高兴回来。

It's good to be back.

我有一阵子没上节目了，但每次来我都特别开心。

It's been a little while since I've been on the show, but, yeah, I always love coming on.

挺有趣的。

It's funny.

量子计算虽然最近成了很多人关注的焦点，但我前几天回想起来，最早听说这个概念还是我大学一年级的时候。

Quantum, while it's been sort of a recent highlight for a lot of people, I was, kind of reminiscing the other day about when I first heard about it and I was in, an undergraduate computer science program freshman year.

当时我们参加了一个关于量子计算的讲座，那一年是2007年。

And, they had us go, to a seminar about this thing called quantum computing and the year would have been 2007.

所以，我已经思考这个问题将近十九年了。

So it's been almost nineteen years that I've been thinking about this stuff.

你知道，尽管只是非常被动地关注。

You know, albeit very passively.

在最初大概十年里，我听说过量子计算。

For the first maybe ten years I had heard about quantum computing.

我对它持非常中立的态度。

I was very agnostic about it.

你知道，那些你平时会交谈、接近量子计算领域的人，对它的态度从恐慌到漠不关心，再到持中立态度，各种都有。

You know, people who you would talk to, who would, who were sort of close to quantum computing, were anywhere from, you know, alarmist to kind of ambivalent, to agnostic about it.

所以在我知道量子计算的头十年里，我始终搞不清楚它到底意味着什么。

And so I never really knew what to make of it for at least like the first ten years of knowing about it.

我总是认为它可能在不远的将来会实用化，但依然非常遥远，或者就像人工智能那样，几十年来一直缓慢地取得进展。

I always assumed it was something that was practical, maybe on the, on the horizon, you know, but still quite far off or, you know, maybe was incrementally making progress in the same way that AI sort of incrementally made progress for, for decades.

但我想说，大概六七年前，通过不断阅读以及和各种人交流——任何有物理背景或深厚密码学背景的人——我都会向他们打听量子计算的进展，而我得到的回应，大致上和我认为对方在其专业领域有多聪明直接相关：基本上就是，我们没看到任何显著的进展。

But I would say maybe six or seven years ago through an accumulation of reading, as well as talking to people, anybody, you know, with a physics background or with a heavy duty cryptography background, would kind of pull on quantum computing to see where it was at and kind of the response that I would get you know, roughly directly correlated with you know, how, how smart I thought the person was you know, in their given field was basically that, you know, we haven't seen any kind of appreciable progress.

它真的还很遥远。

It's really far off.

也许这在理论上是可能的，也许不是。

Maybe it's theoretically possible, maybe not.

事实上，那些我接触过、具有更扎实物理背景的人，越来越怀疑量子计算是否真的存在。

And in fact, the people who I pulled who were closer and closer to having a rigorous physics background were increasingly skeptical that it was even a thing at all.

因此，在过去两年里，随着量子计算逐渐成为焦点——特别是关于量子计算机可能对比特币构成加密威胁的话题——这不仅提升了我的兴趣，也加剧了我的怀疑。

And so, you know, in the last two years of quantum kind of coming to the fore, in terms of, a quantum, you know, a cryptographically relevant quantum computer posing some kind of a challenge to Bitcoin that kind of ramped up both my interest and consequent skepticism.

因为我认为，量子计算被用作一种手段，来推动一系列新密码学的采用。

Because quantum is being used as a sort of, wedge, I think, to potentially, drive the adoption of a bunch of new cryptography.

所以，我就先说到这里，如果你有什么想插话的，现在可以说。

So anyway, I'll pause there in case you have any interjections.

是的。

Yeah.

好的。

Okay.

所以，我的意思是，大多数人担心的威胁是：如果量子计算取得快速进展，并结合肖尔算法，就可能推算出我们比特币的私钥，从而窃取币，尤其是如果你的公钥或XPub曾经暴露过的话。

So, I mean, you know, the threat that most people are concerned with is this idea that if a, if there's new advances very quickly in quantum computing that, and that combined with Shaw's algorithm, which may allow people to sort of back out the private key for our Bitcoins and then steal the coins, etcetera, especially if you have an exposed public key for that, for those coins or your XPub was exposed at some point.

这似乎是主要的威胁。

That's that seems to be the main threat.

当然，这引发了大量研究和讨论。

And then, of course, that has spurred a lot of research and discussion.

Hunter Beast 提出的付费到 Merkel 树的方案 BIP 已经作为 BIP 被合并了。

The Hunter Beast pay to Merkel route proposal BIP has now been merged just as a BIP.

因此，这方面已经取得了一些进展。

So there's there has been some progress on that.

但另一方面，也有一些对比特币持批评态度的人说，比特币开发者什么都没做。

But on the other hand, there are, let's say, detractors of Bitcoin who are saying, oh, Bitcoin developers are not doing anything.

但与此同时，这也存在真正的权衡。

But at the same time, there are real trade offs to this as well.

这并不是免费的。

It's not just free.

你不能打个响指就说：好了，我们现在量子安全了。

It's not just, you can't just snap your fingers and, oh, now we're quantum secure.

确实有很多实际的工作要做。

Like there are, there's real work to be done.

但让我们先深入探讨一下这种可能性。

But let's just dig into the possibility aspect of it.

对吧？

Right?

因为最近似乎有一些公告，比如谷歌和其他一些大型量子实验室声称，我们有了这个Willow芯片，或者说，现在的问题不再是能否实现，而是工程能力的问题。

Because it seems to be that there's been some recent announcements, you know, from, you know, Google and some other big quantum labs and they're saying things like, oh, well, we've got this Willow chip or, oh, you know, now it's not a matter of, you know, it's, it's a matter of engineering capability.

你对这个怎么看？

Where are you on that?

是的。

Yeah.

如果你看一下时间线，迄今为止量子计算机分解的最大数字是15，这是2001年由IBM完成的。

So if you look at the timeline, debatably the largest number ever factored by a quantum computer is a 15 And that was done back in 2001, by IBM.

而15这个数字似乎具有一些特别适合量子计算机的结构。

And, 15, I guess has some special structure that was particularly amenable to quantum computers.

因此，下一次尝试分解因数是在2012年分解21，这比分解15的难度大了十倍。

And so, when the next attempt was made at factoring, which was '21 in 2012, that was a 10 X effort over 15.

甚至对于这次分解的结构是否真正使用了肖尔算法，还存在一些争议。

And there's even some debate about the structure of that as to whether or not it was a legitimate use of a Shor's algorithm.

所以，我们实际上并没有看到在此之后有任何可验证的进展。

So we really haven't seen, you know, any demonstrable progress past that.

出现过一些类似障眼法的实验，使用量子计算或某些物理装置。

There have been these kind of, slight of hand type experiments, using quantum computing or, know, some physical apparatus.

但这些实验通常依赖于经典算法的预处理或后处理。

But those are typically handicapped by, classical pre or post processing.

所以这并不是纯粹的量子计算。

So it's not a purely quantum thing.

通常，量子电路的设置是基于对解的某种先验知识。

Oftentimes the way the quantum circuit is set up is with some knowledge of the solution.

因此，这些其实都只是无意义的玩具式例子。

So, really these are, these are toy sort of meaningless examples.

你知道，虽然我不算是实验方面的专家，对错误纠正、相干时间延长这些事情并不精通。

You know, while I think I'm not an expert on, on the experimental state of, you know, things like error correction or, you know, increases in coherence time and so forth.

但据我所知，目前仍存在一个真正根本性的差距，关于一个核心问题：这些量子比特——本质上是概率性比特——能否实现。

I, I think to my knowledge, there remains this, truly fundamental gap in terms of the idea of, you know, one of the, one of the big fundamental questions is can these qubits, which are basically, you know, probabilistic bits.

在传统计算机中，所有计算都基于确定性比特，即非零即一的状态。

So in a, in a, in a computer, all computations happen on these deterministic bits in our classical computers where there's either a zero or a one state.

而在量子计算机中，它们依靠的是具有概率性状态的量子比特进行运算。

In quantum computers, those computers work on qubits, which have a sort of probabilistic state.

而且计算机中所有量子比特之间都存在纠缠，这带来了各种问题，因为维持一个连贯的量子态是一个极其精细的物理过程，我们在扩展这方面其实并没有很好的方法。

And there's an entanglement between all of the qubits in a computer which creates all kinds of problems because maintaining a coherent quantum state is this very finicky physical process that we really, you know, don't have great methods for in terms of scaling everything up.

因此，这里有一个哲学性或理论性的问题，大致是：对于一个足够深的量子电路，比如运行Shor算法破解128位ECDSA，其门电路的深度和计算所需时间，是否会超过量子比特维持相干性的物理极限。

And so there's this, this philosophical or, or, or kind of theoretical, question that's, that's basically like, you know, for a, a quantum circuit of sufficient depth, you know, say something like running shores on even, you know, a 128 bit, ECDSA, does the depth of that gate, does the time spent in the computation kind of outstrip the physical limits of how long these qubits can maintain coherence.

这引发了一个根本性的开放问题，甚至让人质疑量子计算本身是否真的可行。

And so, so that's like an open fundamental question that that even prompts people to wonder if if quantum computing is like a feasible thing in the first place.

这还只是暂时搁置了所有与拥有足够多量子比特、真正实现密码学相关应用的量子计算机相伴而来的物理挑战。

That's setting aside all of the physical challenges that would accompany a quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits to actually make something cryptographically relevant, you know, applicable.

你在谈论需要成千上万个逻辑量子比特，这相当于需要数万甚至数十万个物理量子比特。

You're you're talking about the need for, you know, thousands of logical qubits, which translates into, you know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of physical qubits.

你需要多个物理量子比特来构建一个逻辑量子比特，而逻辑量子比特大致相当于经典计算机中的单个比特。

You need multiple physical qubits basically to construct a logical qubit and a logical qubit is kind of the, the equivalent of a single bit, you know, in a classical computer.

因此，关于与此相关的各种物理问题，有不同的报告和说法。

So there, you know, there are varying reports on all the different physical problems associated with this.

构建量子比特有不同的方法。

There are different methods of constructing qubits.

我无法告诉你目前最大的物理量子比特排列是什么，因为这些不同的技术各有其自身的难题。

And I couldn't tell you what sort of the largest physical qubit arrangement that's been come up with is because again, there are these, these different techniques, all of which are kind of fraught in their own various ways.

有些方法需要将这些高度精密的设备维持在极低温的环境中。

You know, some things require keeping, you know, these, these highly tuned machines at like, you know, totally frigid temperatures.

因此，实现这些量子比特有不同的物理手段，而它们全都充满挑战。

And so so so there's different physical means of achieving these qubits and and and they're all kind of fraught.

而且，目前没有任何迹象表明我们具备将这些技术规模化的能力。

And, you know, there's no indication that we even have the physical means of scaling these things up.

是的。

Yeah.

所以你明显持怀疑态度。

So you're definitely more on the skeptic side.

所以你是觉得这可能永远无法实现，还是觉得至少还需要几十年？

So do you see it as like, it might never be a thing or do you see it more like, no, it's like decades out.

你对此的看法是怎样的？

Like, where are you at there?

我认为，我们不知道它是否真的能实现。

I think, we don't know if it'll ever be a thing.

如果它真的能实现，我的看法是，那至少还需要几十年甚至更久。

And if it is a thing, yeah, my belief is it's, it's, it's many, many, many decades out.

人们经常将量子计算与人工智能进行比较。

The, the point of comparison that's often drawn with quantum is one that stems from AI.

这种比较认为，几十年来，从六十年代的Lisp开发者开始，人们就一直在谈论人工智能和通用智能的概念，但直到几年前我们才看到令人印象深刻的成果——也就是这些大语言模型，它们虽然不是真正的通用智能，但已经足以模仿到让大多数人上当的程度。

And that's this idea that, well, you know, for decades, you know, starting in the sixties, with the Lisp guys and, you know, people had been talking about this, this notion of, of, AI and general intelligence and really we didn't have any kind of, you know, impressive result, until a few years ago when we got these, LLMs that, you know, if not being a kind of generalized intelligence, at least sufficiently mimic that, you know, to the point where they can sort of fool most people.

所以这个论点认为，AI 是突然冒出来的，因此我们对量子技术也该有类似的预期。

And so this, you know, the argument goes well with AI, I kind of came out of nowhere, so we should kind of expect something similar with quantum.

而我认为，这本身就是一个需要细致探讨的问题。

And, well, I think that's kind of a nuanced discussion in itself.

AI 在过去取得了大量的渐进式进展，而且 AI 本质上是一个纯粹的虚拟软件问题。

There was a ton of incremental progress with AI and, you know, AI is this kind of purely virtual software problem.

量子技术则引入了非常棘手的物理层面。

Quantum brings in this very thorny physical component.

即使你暂时搁置关于它是否可行的根本性问题。

Even if you set aside kind of the fundamental questions about whether it's feasible or not.

我认为，作为文明，我们在应对这些虚拟软件问题上已经变得非常擅长。

And I think we've, we've gotten really good as a civilization at dealing with these virtual software problems.

这是一个高度受限的环境。

It's a highly constrained environment.

但在过去几十年里，我们在应对物理问题方面并没有那么擅长。

We haven't gotten so good, you know, in the last few decades at dealing with physical problems.

我的意思是，像核反应堆这样相对简单的东西，我们现在几乎都难以建造了。

I mean, you know, for something as relatively simple as a say nuclear reactor, we can barely put those together anymore.

更不用说像密码学相关的量子计算机所需的那些冶金和工程方面的进步了。

Let alone the kind of, you know, metallurgical and engineering advancements that, that we would need for something like, a crypt, you know, cryptographically relevant quantum computer.

所以我认为，对于这类事情，确实存在许多值得深刻怀疑的理由。

So I think there's, yeah, th th there are lots of avenues, for profound skepticism when it comes to this stuff.

那么关于比特币，你认为比特币开发者和这个生态系统中的人们应该怎么做呢？

So when it comes to Bitcoin then what do you think Bitcoin developers and people building in this ecosystem should do?

他们应该致力于量子抗性这类技术吗？还是不应该？你对此持什么观点？

Should they be working on quantum mitigation, know, these kinds of ideas or not or where are you at on that?

是的，这是一个有点棘手的问题，因为这取决于你希望从哪个层面来回答。

Yeah, it's kind of a tough question because it depends on what level you want to answer it at.

从基本原理出发，撇开市场预期或非技术人员的担忧，我认为作为开发者，我们有更好更值得投入的时间用处。

From, from a fundamental basis, setting aside market expectations or worries, on the part of, you know, non technical people, I would say there are way better uses of our time as, as developers.

你知道，我们可以做的事情有无穷无尽的清单。

You know, there's kind of an infinite list of things that we could be working on.

对我来说，量子计算甚至排不进比特币相关问题的前100名。

And for me, you know, quantum doesn't even breach the top 100 things when it comes to Bitcoin.

但我们已经制造了这样一种局面：由于围绕量子计算及其可能性的末日式炒作，它现在可能对比特币的价格产生了重大影响。

But, but we've created the situation where, because there is this kind of doomish hype around, quantum and it's, it's possibility, it's now created, you know, potentially, significant, price implications for Bitcoin.

显然，在某种程度上，比特币是一种不断自我实现的预言。

And obviously to some extent, you know, Bitcoin is this, you know, iterative self fulfilling prophecy.

如果我们达到这样一个阶段——机构和其他大型实体都相信量子计算就在三年后，而比特币开发者却对此毫无作为。

And if we get to this point where, you know, institutions and, and, you know, other sort of large entities are convinced that Quantum's just three years around the corner and the, the Bitcoin guys aren't doing anything about it.

这就会对比特币的普及造成巨大的阻力。

You know, that creates a massive headwind for Bitcoin adoption.

我一直对比特币时间表被推迟这种现象感到异常好奇。

And, I've, I've been really interested in kind of morbidly curious about the interaction between say a delay in Bitcoin's timeline.

如果因为人们对量子计算的担忧，比特币的林迪效应被推迟了八年，这会如何影响它的安全预算和供应计划？

You know, if, if, if sort of the Lindy meter on Bitcoin gets pushed back whatever eight years because people are worried about quantum, How does that interface with, you know, the security budget and the supply schedule?

因为这本身就是一个非常复杂的动态过程。

Because that's a very complex dynamic in itself.

所以，抱歉，我回到你刚才的问题。

So anyway, I'm sorry to get back to what you were asking.

讽刺的是，我认为一些针对量子威胁的提议解决方案其实有不少优点，比如从抽象层面来看，我对BIP360的内容非常支持。

Ironically, I think there are some really good dimensions to some of the proposed solutions, for these quantum, mitigations, you know, for example, like in the abstract, I'm very favorable to the content of BIP three sixty, as it's written.

如果不是因为从Taproot一开始，就很有必要直接采用一种无需依赖该机制的Merkle树支付方式。

If not only because from the beginning in Taproot, it would have made a lot of sense to just have a spend to Merkle tree type without, you know, having that.

某种程度上，你是在说，即使量子计算并非真实存在，BIP360的某些理念本身也可能很有用。

I guess in a way you're, you're sort of saying some of these BIP three sixty concepts might be useful anyway, of whether quantum computing is a real thing.

是的，完全正确。

Yeah, absolutely.

当这个提案具体纳入了某些量子抵抗方案时，我曾更加怀疑和犹豫。

I was much more, skeptical, hesitant, when the proposal actually incorporated specific, quantum resistance schemes.

因为你知道，一旦开始讨论将新的密码学方案引入比特币，那就是完全不同的另一个层级的改动了。

Because, you know, when you start talking about putting new cryptography into Bitcoin, that's kind of a whole nother level of severity of change.

如果你只是在引入一种新的Taproot类型，本质上只是从现有Taproot路径中移除了一些代码，那么这种改动的敏感性就低得多。

If you're just talking about introducing a new Tapper type that, you know, in many ways just removes code from the existing Tapper path, then, you know, that's, that's a significantly less sensitive change to be making.

有意思。

Interesting.

是的。

Yeah.

我想，另一个可能大家很想听听你看法的重要问题是，詹姆斯，你怎么看NIST，美国国家标准与技术研究院？

And I guess the other, probably the other big one that people might want to ask you your view on is look James, what about NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology?

他们说，你看，他们正在举办这些竞赛，推动人们研究后量子密码学，并建议在某个年份前采用后量子方案，我们已经看到一些科技行业开始采用这类技术，比如VPN之类的。

They are saying, oh look, you know, they're running these, you know, competitions or these ways to have people work on post quantum cryptography, they're recommending by a certain year that people should have post quantum and we're seeing some instances of the technology industry update to using these kinds of things, like VPNs and things like this.

我认为这可能是因为所谓的‘现在截获，未来解密’的担忧。

I think that might be because of the so called store and, decrypts later kind of concern.

所以，你对这个怎么看？

So I guess what's your thought on that?

你觉得他们是不是对一些短期内不会实现的事情过度恐慌了？或者你如何看待NIST和其他机构已经在推进某种形式的后量子密码学这一概念？

Do you think that they are just overly panicked about something that's not going to be real anytime soon or how would you, how are you thinking about this concept that NIST and others are already doing some form of post quantum?

我认为，当你面对一个政府机构，尤其是像NIST这样有历史记录的机构时——他们有时可能被其他机构引导，或者自己明知故犯地提出了一些有问题的方案，比如确定性随机比特生成器，或者回顾其他案例，比如Clipper芯片。

I think when you're dealing with a government agency, especially NIST who has a history of trying to, you know, in some cases, you know, maybe they were led into it by other agencies or, you know, maybe they themselves proposed knowingly some, some faulty constructions like, you know, the, your, deterministic, random bit generator, or even just, you know, kind of looking back at other instance, like the, the clipper chip.

我的意思是，如果政府强烈推动你采用某种加密方式，你就应该非常非常警惕。

I mean, really if, if the government is strongly pushing cryptography your way, you should be very, very wary.

而且，说实话，我这部分想法并没有确凿的证据，但我不禁怀疑，ECDSA 本身其实已经运行得很好了。

And, you know, there's a part of me, I don't, I don't really have substantial evidence for this obviously, but there's, there's a part of me that doesn't wonder if, you know, ECDSA is working just fine.

所以，它在经典计算世界中是一个不错的算法。

So, you know, it's a, it's a good algorithm in the, in the classical world.

如果我是像 NIST 或 NSA 这样的机构，我想设计一种对大多数使用者来说看似非常安全的方案，但其实我清楚某个参数的设定方式，或者知道某种结构能让我在拥有特定信息的情况下，安全地破解这个方案——比如在涉及国家安全风险、法院传票之类的情况下——我一定会对此感到非常担忧。

If, if I were an organization like NIST or the NSA and, you know, I wanted to come up with a scheme that was, you know, thought to be very strong, when it concerned most actors, but, know, maybe I knew about the way that a certain parameter was specified or I was aware of some kind of structure that would allow me to, you know, given whatever information they have, you know, safely, unlock this scheme if, there was a national security risk or, you know, a warrant or something, I would be really concerned about that.

我确实对这一点非常担忧。

And I am really concerned about that.

尤其是当你注意到这个领域里关于这个话题的歇斯底里情绪时。

Especially, you know, when, when you kind of, pick up on the hysterics, coming out of that community on, on this topic.

但即便抛开那些阴谋论的猜测，我认为学术界和商业界在量子计算问题上正形成一种奇怪的交汇点，因为有很多人已经把自己的学术生涯建立在量子计算的研究之上。

But, you know, even setting aside the tinfoil stuff, I think there's just kind of a weird nexus going on between academia and business when it comes to quantum, because there are a lot of people who have kind of based their academic careers, studying quantum computing.

那里已经形成了一整套的认证体系和基础设施。

There's a whole sort of, you know, credentialing infrastructure there.

而且，根据我在学术界的经验，我认为当时有很多聪明的人和很多出色的工作，但你也可能陷入这样的情况：你并没有真正深入思考自己所做事情的基本原理，只是因为导师在那里，而且他是这个领域的专家，你就跟着他的方向走。

And, you know, from my time in academia, I think there were a lot of really smart people and a lot of good work, going on, but you can also get into these situations where, you know, you haven't really thought hard about the fundamentals of what you're doing and you're just kind of proceeding on something because your advisor, you know, is there and is a subject matter expert.

所以我能理解，为什么在学术界会出现一种围绕量子计算的、看似自发形成的热潮。

And so I could see there being this kind of, you know, emergent phenomenon around, there being a big scene in academia for quantum computing.

当然，这些公司背后也存在着商业利益。

There obviously being business interests around, you know, these companies.

而这三者——政府、企业和学术界——逐渐融合，无意中共同推高了人们对这件事的期待，你明白我的意思吗？

And the two kind of fusing together and creating a situation where, you know, the, those three entities, government, business and academia are, are sort of unintentionally hyping this thing up if that makes sense.

是的。

Yeah.

好的。

Okay.

所以从我们目前看到和听到的情况来看，主要是谷歌、IBM、Continuum 以及一些其他的实验室在做这件事。

And so it seems like, you know, from what we're seeing and hearing it's Google, it's IBM, it's Continuum and a few other labs and things like this.

当然，在比特币圈子里，大家都知道斯捷潘·西杜列夫。

And of course, you know, known in the Bitcoin space is Stepan Sidurev.

他实际上正在一家名为PlanQC的公司研发量子计算机。

And so he is actually working on a quantum computer at, I believe it's called PlanQC.

他是一位在该领域工作的视障研究员，曾在马克斯·普朗克研究所做博士后，我们也都知道他参与过Spectre Wallet的开发。

So he's like a sighted researcher in the field, like postdoc working at Max Planck and things like this, but he also worked on Spectre Wallet as many of us know.

他还参与了底层库的开发，我认为叫m bit，是Spectre DIY的基础库。

And he worked on, I believe, the underlying library, I think it's called m bit, which is underlying like Spectre DIY.

所以他可能是少数真正同时精通这两个领域的人之一。

So he's probably one of the unique people who's actually like an ex like a genuine expert in both in both sides of this.

我记得去年十一月曾看过他在一个小组讨论中发言。

And I recall seeing him speak at a panel and this is in November just of last year.

就在两三个月前，他还说，别着急，至少二十年后再担心这个问题。

So like two or three months ago, he was saying like, only start worrying about this in like twenty years from now, you know?

所以你看，这个领域里有各种不同的观点，对吧？

So you have like this whole range of different views, right?

当一位真正从事该领域研究的专家说，别担心，至少二十年内都不用考虑这个问题，因为在此之前，其他更弱的系统和密码学机制早就被攻破了。

When a genuine like expert in the field cited working on this, he's saying no, it's like twenty years out before you even really worry about this and there'll be like weaker or other systems and cryptography that breaks down before, you know, they get to Bitcoin.

对我来说，这听起来相当合理，还有其他人也提到，比如在一些其他演讲中，人们说比特币要到二十年后才会有风险。

You know, to me it sounds like, that's pretty reasonable and then there are other people like, you know, there are some other talks and things where people are sort of saying it's like, you know, twenty years out before Bitcoin is, you know, at risk sort of thing.

但另一些人却说：不，不，看看他们的时间表。

But then you have other people saying, no, no, look, look at their timeline.

预计在两到五年内就会实现。

It's coming in two to five years.

我们现在就需要协调一次大规模的软分叉。

We need to like do a coordinate a big soft fork now.

是的。

Yeah.

在我看来，情况似乎是这样，再次说明，我不是专家。

It just kind of I guess to me, the way I'm seeing it is like, again, I'm not an expert.

我只是个ADIQ播客主持人。

I'm just, I'm an ADIQ podcaster.

在我看来，如果这真是个现实问题，那更可能是十五到二十年后的事。

You know, it seems to me like if it's a real thing, it's more like fifteen or twenty years out.

当然。

Absolutely.

我的理解也是这样。

I, that's my understanding as well.

我记得亨特·比斯特，他提出了BIP 360，是个很不错的人。

And even, I remember Hunter Beast who's proposed BIP three sixty, very nice guy.

但我记得他在Twitter上就这个实验闹得沸沸扬扬。

But I remember him, you know, kind of making a lot of noise on Twitter about this, experiment.

Twitter上另一个家伙声称他破解了5位ECDSA。

Some other guy on Twitter had done where he allegedly broke five bit ECDSA.

但后来发现，从量子角度来说，这根本不是真的。

But it wound up that, you know, that, that wasn't at all true, in a quantum sense.

当时用了大量经典计算，才得出这个结果，还靠了很多猜测，而这种方式在比特数增加时根本无法扩展。

And there was a lot of classical processing done to kind of arrive at that result and a lot of, guessing, you know, that doesn't scale well with the number of bits.

所以我认为，从根本上讲，我们根本看不到任何迹象表明这件事近在眼前。

So I just think we've, you know, at a fundamental level, we've seen no basis whatsoever that this is anywhere near around the corner.

在我看来，我们根本看不到任何依据表明这距离实现还有一二十年。

We've seen no basis whatsoever in my thinking that this is a decade away, two decades away.

所以从某种意义上说，这一切最终还是回到这一点。

So I think it all does come back to that in a sense.

但没错，我再次强调，我完全支持目前版本的BIP三百六十，但这与量子技术根本无关。

But, yeah, again, I am all for DIP three sixty as written, but it's really, nothing to do with quantum.

那么我想更明确地问一下：假设我们挥一挥魔杖，

And so then I guess to, I guess ask it in a more pointed way then let's say hypothetically, you know, it got it advanced like, okay, let's wave our magic wand.

假设BIP三百六十得到了社区的广泛支持，大家一致同意进行这个软分叉，但未来某天，我们可能又会考虑再做一个软分叉，引入Shor或Sphincs+，或者某种真正的量子签名方案；到那时，可能会出现一个讨论：我们是否要提高区块大小，或者引入某种量子签名折扣，以补偿这些量子签名更大的体积？

Let's say BIP three sixty, you know, the community rallied around that and said, yep, let's do this soft fork, but then maybe in the future it's actually, no, now let's do a soft fork to actually bring in, you know, shrinks or sphix plus or, you know, an actual, you know, and then at that time there might be a conversation around, are we gonna raise the block size or have some kind of quantum witness discount to compensate for the fact that these quantum signatures are bigger?

而且这其实是一个更现实的问题。

And then also, it's also a more real thing.

我们确实将不得不承担一些实际成本。

There are real costs that we will have to pay.

例如，我们将不再拥有HD分层确定性钱包，一些我们习惯的功能，比如音乐和Frost，都将消失；我们会转向沉默支付，理论上，这些都需要改变，甚至我们的硬件钱包也可能需要更新升级，以应对量子签名或后量子密码学。

So for example, we will no longer have HD hierarchical deterministic wallets, you know, things we're gonna lose music too and frost, we're gonna have silent payments, you know, theoretically, like some of these things would have to change and even our hardware wallets might need to be updated and upgraded to deal with quantum signatures or post quantum crypto.

那我这样问你吧。

So let me ask you this way.

你觉得你是支持还是反对这第二步呢？

Do you think would you be for or against that, let's say, that second step?

我觉得这简直是个噩梦。

I think it's an absolute nightmare.

即使你看看SegWit的部署花了多长时间，争议性地讲，Taproot也还没在很多方面完全部署到位。

If you just even look at how long it took to roll out SegWit debatably Taproot hasn't even been fully rolled out in many, in many ways.

我合作过的大多数主要托管方都不支持花费Taproot输出，他们只能发送到Taproot地址。

Most major custodians I've worked with don't support, you know, spending Taproot outputs they can send to Taproot.

但我们都清楚，比特币的部署过程在完整生态系统层面需要非常非常长的时间。

But, we all know that the deployment process for Bitcoin, takes a very, very long time in a full ecosystem sense.

而像量子这样的提议变更，将需要非常长的时间和巨大的努力，但这还不是我根本性的反对理由。

And a proposed change like that for quantum, would take a very long time and a lot of effort, but that's not even my fundamental objection.

好吧。

Okay.

我看待密码学的方式，就像看待制药业一样。

I look at cryptography the way that I look at say pharmaceuticals.

据说老护士们有句箴言：不要服用上市不到八年的药物，因为这些是非常复杂的东西，我们根本无法完全理解。

It's it's allegedly old nurses wisdom that you should not take a drug that hasn't been on the market for more than eight years because, you know, these are very, very complicated things that we just don't fully understand.

而真正有意义的测试平台，只有现实世界。

And really the only meaningful test harness is reality.

对我来说，密码学也是如此。

Cryptography to me is the same way.

你可以纸上谈兵，但除非你真正部署了一个密码系统，并将实际风险置于其中，否则你永远不知道自己有哪些未知的未知因素。

You know, you can do your reasoning on paper, but until you deploy a crypto system and put some actual, risk behind it, you just, you don't know what's, what your unknown unknowns are.

我非常担心，量子加密的炒作会导致我们考虑将未经这种测试和实战检验的密码学方案引入比特币。

And I'm very concerned that the quantum froth is going to lead to a situation where we even consider committing new cryptography to Bitcoin that hasn't seen that kind of testing and battle proofing.

我认为这将是一个可怕的风险，即使只是可选加入，因为一旦你能让足够多的人相信有必要在比特币中加入这种密码学，那么说服同样数量的人使用这些方案锁定他们的币，就只是一步之遥。

I think that would be a horrible risk even if it's just opt in because if you can convince enough people that there's reason to add this cryptography to Bitcoin, it's a very short leap to convince a similar number of people that they should, you know, encumber their coins using these schemes.

而当我们发现，其实我们对这套方案的理解远不如想象中那么透彻时，会发生什么？即使像Sphinx这样的方案，它基于SHA-256，听起来非常安全。

And then what happens when, you know, we find out that we didn't understand the scheme as well as we thought we did, even if in the case of like Sphinx, it's based on SHA two fifty six, which makes it sound very safe.

但你知道，相信SHA-256作为加密哈希算法的有效性，和相信SHA-256被组合起来构成一个签名算法，这两者之间有巨大差异。

But you know, there's a big difference between being convinced of the efficacy of SHA two fifty six as a cryptographic hash algorithm versus SHA two fifty six composed, you know, together to, to, to make a signing algorithm.

那里存在着很大的差距。

There's kind of a big gap there.

因此，我非常反对在比特币中添加任何新的加密技术，除非我们真的、真的需要它。

So I'm, I'm really, really averse to the idea of, adding any new crypto to Bitcoin unless we really, really need to.

我认为在量子计算方面，根本不存在足以支持这种添加的正当理由。

And I don't think there's, there's anything near a justification for that for quantum.

是的。

Yeah.

好的。

Okay.

我们之前讨论过BIT360的Hunter Beast、Ethan和Isabelle，我想另一位作者也是她。

And so we've spoken about the BIT360 Hunter Beast and Ethan and Isabelle, I think the other the other author on that.

所以，这算是一个想法。

So that's I guess one idea.

还有一个马特·科拉洛的计划。

There's also this Matt Corallo plant.

所以我不确定你对这个了解多少，或者你有没有研究过，但大致是这样的，你熟悉这个吗？

So I don't know how much you know about that or if you've kind of looked into that but the gist of it, do you are you familiar with it or no?

我觉得你或者其他人最近可能提到过。

I think maybe you or somebody mentioned it recently.

这个想法是克隆Taproot并创建一个新的见证版本。

It's the idea of cloning Taproot and creating a new, witness version.

这基本上就是Taproot。

That's basically just Taproot.

但当你花费到这个见证版本时，你基本上不期望能够使用密钥花费。

But when you spend to that witness version, you have sort of no expectation about being able to use the the the key spend.

是这样吗？

Is that right?

是的。

Yeah.

哦，差不多吧。

Oh, sort of.

是的。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

所以我的理解是，我们会保留现有的钱包，让它们在脚本路径中包含这种后量子时代的TapLeaf，而人们现在仍然在使用标准的Taproot功能。

So it would be I think so the way I understand it is like we would have existing wallets, you know, include this kind of post quantum TapLeaf in the script path while people are still using the standard, you know, Taproot stuff today.

然后，人们可以在其中做任何他们想做的事，而且这些内容今天根本不会上链。

And then the idea is inside of that people can do whatever they want and it's not even revealed on chain today.

所以这实际上不会产生影响，但假设——比如说， hypothetically，量子计算时代来临，量子计算机真的出现了，所有人都达成共识。

So it wouldn't actually impact, but, but post, let's say, quote, hypothetically Q Day comes and the quantum computer is here and everyone agrees.

那么，那时的设想是通过一次软分叉来禁用密钥路径，使得这些用户现在可以使用他们的量子TapLeaf脚本路径，转移到任何新的量子方案中。

And I guess then at that point, the idea would be to have a soft fork to disable the key path such that those users can now spend using their quantum, you know, Tapleaf fancy script path into whatever the new, you know, quantum scheme would be.

所以至少在这一点上，它今天不会占用大量的签名空间，同时也能实现某种可能性；当然，这其中还有很多变量，比如这是一次渐进式变革还是突然的变革，社区能否达成一致，确认量子时代已经到来并该采取行动了。但以你对Matt Corallo的量子TapLeaf计划的理解，你是支持、反对，还是有什么其他想法？

So at least in that way, it's not taking up massive signature space at least today and it would allow you know but of course there's all these moving parts of like is it a gradual break or is it a sudden break and then can the community agree yes Q Day has happened and it's time to now do something but I guess as you understand that, let's say the Matt Corallo Quantum TapLeaf plan, are you like for it, against it, or do you have any thoughts?

我觉得这没什么问题。

It's inoffensive to me.

我的意思是，这也不算糟糕。

I mean, it's not horrible.

但我只是觉得，基于我们目前所知，鼓励人们做这种增加复杂性的事情完全没有必要。

But I, I just think encouraging people to do things like that, with all the added complexity just really isn't merited based on what we know.

这当然是你可以采取的一种方案。

It's certainly something that you could resort to.

这可以作为一个计划存在。

It's a plan to have.

也许Matt的意思就是把它当作一种应急方案。

And maybe that's the way that Matt meant it is a kind of contingency.

如果，你知道的，五到十年后，出现了新的证据，表明情况真的在逼近。

If, you know, whatever, five or ten years from now, have some new evidence that, Oh no, this is actually getting closer.

你知道，也许那会是一个不错的中间方案，但我只是觉得，与其激起人们对这件事的焦虑，不如说：我们是技术人员。

You know, maybe that's a fine halfway point, but I just think there's a real risk in getting people riled up about this stuff rather than saying something like, you know, look, we're technical people.

我们对密码学有很好的理解。

We have good understanding of cryptography.

而且我们真的不认为这是个问题。

And we really just don't think this is a problem here.

如果我们遇到相反的证据，这可能是我们的应急计划清单，但你知道，作为工程师，我们的职责是做出这类判断，并基本向人们提供我们对权衡的最佳评估。

Here's maybe our list of contingency plans if we are presented with evidence to the contrary, but you know, I think it's our job as engineers, to make those kinds of judgments and basically give people our best assessment of what the trade offs are.

当权衡的一方伴随着巨大的复杂性，而另一方看似简单，但实际上对企业和个人以及钱包生态系统来说却是一个相当大的负担。

And when, when one side of the trade off comes with, you know, tremendous complexity and you know, something, something like that, that, that really sounds simple, but for businesses and individuals and the wallet ecosystem is a pretty big lift.

我只是觉得，我们最好说：好吧，理论上我们是可以做到的。

I just think we're better served by saying, okay, we could do that in theory.

但让我们先等等。

But let's wait.

是的。

Yeah.

所以等等看。

So wait and see.

是的。

Yeah.

这确实，咱们等等看吧。

It's a, yeah, let's see.

这是个有趣的观点。

It's an interesting, point.

我有点倾向于同意这一点，但我不确定人们会怎么想。

I'm kind of inclined to agree there, but, yeah, I just don't know what, what are people going to think.

另外，我想说的是那个所谓的马特·卡雷拉计划，我不知道这有没有一个正式名称。

And then, the other, I guess the other point with that, the quote unquote Matt Carrella plan, let's say, I don't know if there's like a proper name for this.

我并没有和他坐下来详细讨论过。

Like I didn't have sit with him.

我最近刚提出来，但我想他心中的另一个想法是，因为很多币都是通过BIP 39助记词来保护的，所以或许可以用零知识证明来证明用户仍然拥有该助记词，然后通过某种零知识方案，假设你禁用了密钥托管服务商，这些用户依然能恢复他们的币。

I put it out recently, but I guess the other thing in his mind was because people can use like because a lot of the coins are secured, like people have a BIP 39 seed phrase and there could be like some kind of ZK proof to prove that they still have the seed, you know, the seed phrase for it and then use a ZK thing to then allow them like hypothetically if you had disabled, you know, the key pass vendor that those people could still recover their coins.

所以实际上，这可能只适用于一些早期矿工、可能的比特币核心钱包用户，以及一些大型交易所和托管方，他们会做一些复杂的事情，比如采用某种预先承诺机制。

So then in practice it would just be like some of those early miners and maybe Bitcoin Core wallet users and maybe some of the big exchanges and custodians and, okay, they would do something fancy and do some other thing, like some kind of commitment thing pre commitment scheme.

嗯嗯。

Mhmm.

嗯嗯。

Mhmm.

所以我想这是一方面，但与此同时，假设量子计算真的存在，所有这些仍然会相当混乱，因为我们得考虑人们需要多长时间才能完成过渡，以及我们是否需要更大的区块大小来允许更多人实际完成迁移。

So I guess that's one thing but at the same time this would be also be I mean assuming quantum is real all this stuff It would still be kind of chaotic because then we would have to think about well How long is it going to take for people to transition over right and are we going to have like a bigger block size to allow that to allow more people to actually transition out?

ZK证明有多大？

And how big is the ZK proof?

对吧？

Right?

比如我认为大卫·韦克勒似乎有过一个想法，但根据我读过的一篇博客文章，那个ZK证明可能有500千字节，所以这可能行不通——如果每个人都要在链上提交500千字节，也许可以设计某种机制，让链上只保留更小的证明，而不是完整的500千字节，但确实，这方面涉及很多复杂性，对吧？

Like some I think David Vexler, I believe, had an idea for it, but from what I read on a blog post, it looked like that ZK proof might be 500 kilobytes so it's kind of that might be a non starter like if every person has to put 500 kilobytes on chain maybe there's some way to do like a proof so so it can be like a smaller amount that goes on chain and not the full 500 kilobytes but yeah, it's just, there's a lot of complexity around that, isn't it?

是的。

Yeah.

完全正确。

100%.

而且，你知道，我认为这些预防性方案中的一些并没有什么问题，比如把某些东西藏在塔普树里，留待以后揭示。

And, you know, again, I don't think there's anything wrong with some of these like prophylactic schemes where you're hiding something in the tap tree for, for later reveal.

我认为唯一的前提是，理想情况下，它今天不应该具备花费能力，因为你不想把塔普根元数据变成有毒废弃物——如果有人获取了它，而恰好出现某种根本性问题，比如你为了预期某种新的加密方案而提前使用了op_success之类的操作，一旦这些信息泄露，你的币在任何事情发生之前就可能面临被盗的风险。

I think the only qualifier there is that, you know, ideally it shouldn't have spend power today because what you don't want to do is turn your taproot metadata into this toxic waste where if anybody gets ahold of it and there's some kind of a fundamental issue, if it, you know, say you're spending to, you know, like an op success or something in anticipation of a new, crypto scheme, if, if that gets loose, all of a sudden now, you know, your coins are at risk of, of theft even before anything has happened.

所以，如果这是一种方案，比如我们把某样东西藏在塔普树里。

So if it's, if it's a, if it's a scheme where it's like, okay, well, we're hiding this thing in the, in the tap tree.

然后在某个时候，我们或许可以做出某种共识变更，使其启用，让基于ZKP的赎回成为可能。

And then at some point maybe we can make some consensus change that turns it on and, you know, makes redemption given a ZKP or something, possible.

我的意思是，再说一遍，我的立场是：尽情发挥，玩得开心。

I mean, again, like, you know, my, my position is go nuts, have fun.

但如果我是在一家公司工作，像我现在这样的职位，我不会建议这么做，因为这需要投入大量工作，而回报却高度不确定。

But, I wouldn't, if I was working at a company like, in, in the capacity that I am now, I would not advise that, because it's a, it's a ton of work for something that's highly, highly speculative.

我的意思是，所有这些东西，我一个朋友打了个比方，就像在航空业四处奔走，极度恐慌，因为有人觉得传送技术两年内就会实现，毕竟AI已经在思考如何实现传送了。

I mean, all of this stuff, you know, the, the, the analogy that a friend of mine came up with is like, it's kind of like running around and being really, really fearful for the airline industry that like teleportation is two years away because we have like the AIs thinking about, you know, how to do teleportation.

这就像

It's T

这一天即将到来。

day is coming.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

Exactly.

是的。

Yeah.

对我来说，经过多年的思考和阅读这些内容，我虽然只是粗略地了解，但确实觉得这有点类似。

For, for me, you know, again, after years of kind of ruminating and reading about this stuff, you know, I'll be at cursorily, but like, yeah, it kind of strikes me as a similar thing.

当然，我们并没有真正的传送产业。

Granted, we don't have a teleportation industry, really.

所以，也许这并不完全类比，但我认为这正是我们在这里所面对的威胁程度或近似水平。

So, maybe it's not totally analogous, but I think that's like the level of, of, of, real threat that we're dealing with here or approximate.

是的。

Yeah.

好的。

Okay.

好吧，我会让听众自己去判断这一点。

Well, I'll let, listeners make up their own minds on that.

如果你对量子方面的内容没有其他要说的，那我们来谈谈比特币协议吧。

Let's, if you've got nothing else to say on the quantum specific side of things, let's talk just kind of Bitcoin protocol.

我知道你可能有自己的看法，关于比特币协议开发本该怎样发展， versus 它实际的发展路径。

I know you, maybe you have let's say your own views about how Bitcoin protocol development let's say should have gone versus how it has gone.

我知道你曾经对大区块方案有些兴趣，同时也非常关注信令（covenants）方面，显然你参与了CTV和OpVault等相关讨论。

I know you were kind of flirting a bit with big blocker ideas but also really interested in the covenants side of things, obviously, as you were involved with the CTV and OpVault and some of these related discussions.

所以，让我们听听你对比特币协议方面的看法。

So I guess let's, let's hear from you kind of Bitcoin protocol side of things.

你目前在这个问题上的立场是什么？

Where are you at there?

你的总体观点是什么？

Like what's your overarching view?

好的。

Sure.

对。

Yeah.

嗯，斯蒂芬，你知道的，我是个反主流者，我想我们很多人都是这样，如果你在比特币领域，你可能天生就有一种喜欢质疑、不断挑战现状的性格。

Well, you know, Stefan, I am, as you know, a contrarian and that's, think many of us are obviously if, if, if you're in Bitcoin, you have a, maybe a disagreeable temperament that leads you to, you know, constantly, be prodding at things.

我确实如此，很多听众可能已经知道了，但很高兴你提到了大区块的问题，因为我确实觉得这非常有趣。

And I'm certainly that way, as, as many of the listeners may know already, but, I'm, I'm glad that you brought up the big block stuff because I do find that really interesting.

实际上，你之前提到过零知识证明的大小，这使得这个问题变得有点相关。

Actually, you know, you said something earlier about ZKP proof size that, makes that somewhat of a relevant question.

希望这个相关性不会很快变得重要，但你知道，我迄今为止最自豪的一次演讲，是在上一次的第25届会议上。

Hopefully not too relevant anytime soon, but, you know, maybe, maybe the, the talk that I'm most proud of ever having given was, at the last stop next, I think that was 25.

我做了一场演讲，基本上是想用全新的视角，重新评估一种温和版的大区块世界观，也就是说，也许第二层扩展并没有我们所有人之前认为的那么顺利。

I gave a talk, where basically I wanted to sort of reevaluate with fresh eyes, a modest version of the big blocker view of the world, which is to say that, you know, maybe instead of doing, maybe second layer scaling isn't going quite as well as we all thought it would.

那么，如果我们重新转向区块大小作为扩容手段，这个世界会是什么样子？

And so what, what, what does the world look like where we kind of turned back to something like the block size, as a method to scale.

我处理这个问题的方式是，基本上修改了比特币核心代码，以获取大量时间信息。

And the way I went about this is I basically modified a Bitcoin core to give me a bunch of timing information.

你知道，我在每个主要操作周围都加了计时器，从接收区块到存储UTXO，所有这些步骤，因为我想要了解我的家用硬件在住宅带宽下，到底有多少余量可以利用。

You know, I was sort of putting a clock around every major operation that happens, between, you know, receiving a block and storing the UTXO, all that stuff, because I wanted to get a sense of how, my consumer hardware, you know, on residential bandwidth, you know, how much headroom I basically had to work with.

我对结果感到非常非常惊讶，我不会详细展开，如果你感兴趣，可以去看我的OpNEXT演讲，它叫什么来着，大概是‘建模区块大小限制’，但简而言之，我对自己那台价值一千美元、连接着千兆网络的电脑所拥有的余量感到极其惊讶。

And I was very, very surprised at the results, which I won't try and, you know, go, go too much into, you can go watch the OpNEXT talk if you like, it's something called, something like a modeling block size constraints, but, the long and the short of it is that I was very, very surprised with the amount of headroom that my, you know, thousand dollar computer connected to gigabit internet had.

这促使我重新思考一个更宏观的问题：我们在坚持小区块原则时，究竟做出了怎样的权衡？

And it prompted me to kind of evaluate this larger question about like what's actually the trade that we made in terms of, you know, being really principled about small blocks.

这种坚持，是不是只是在过度美化树莓派节点运行者，以及那些极端受限的场景——比如你得通过卫星传输区块？

And, and whether that was just kind of this exercise in, you know, fetishizing like Raspberry Pi node runners and, you know, these like hyper constrained situations where you have to beam, you know, blocks on, on satellite.

在区块大小之争中，我绝对是其中一员。

And, you know, I was, I was absolutely one of those guys in the, in the block size wars.

我是一个彻头彻尾的小区块支持者。

I was as small blocker as, as they come.

但说实话，我所测量到的数据迫使我去重新评估，并将这些发现与闪电网络的发展现状进行对比。

But, you know, to be honest, the things that I measured really forced me to reevaluate and, and, and kind of, you know, juxtaposing that on how things have gone with Lightning.

我的意思是，人们忘记了在最初的闪电网络白皮书中，德莱亚和蓬基本上说过，只有通过增加区块大小，这些技术才能如我们所期望的那样正常工作。

I mean, people forget that in the original Lightning white paper, you know, Dryya and Poon basically say like, hey, the only way this stuff like works in the way that we want it to work is is with a block size increase.

我想我不太记得确切的数字了，但好像是120兆字节左右。

And I think I can't remember the exact number, but it was like a 120 megs or something like this.

是的。

Yeah.

那是他们在2015年或2016年的闪电网络白皮书中给出的数字。

That was the number they gave back in the, I think twenty fifteen or 16 lightning white paper.

对。

Yeah.

没错。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

没错。

Exactly.

所以，我觉得这个想法现在被严重误解了。

And so, you know, I think it's an idea that's that's really gotten a bad rap.

它已经不再受欢迎了。

It's fallen out of favor.

我的意思是，像BSV那帮人搞什么吉加区块，这种参数简直可笑。

I mean, like the, you know, there are laughable, like, parameters like the, you know, the BSV guys doing Giga Blocks something.

吉加兆？

Giga megs?

是的。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

这完全荒谬又滑稽，但我觉得彻底否定任何调整区块大小的可能性，不仅不明智，而且可能不现实，这取决于未来会发生什么。

Like, that's completely ridiculous and cartoonish, but, I think like writing off the idea of ever touching the block sizes, is is not only like ill advised, but maybe unrealistic, depending on on what happens.

所以，不管怎样，是的。

So so anyway, yeah.

所以，我其实一直在研究这个，纯粹当作一个有趣的反主流练习。

So that's that's something that I was kind of looking into, just as a as a fun contrarian exercise.

但说到你那个普遍的问题，你想知道我对比特币协议开发有什么看法？

But, you know, to your general question, you know, like, how do I feel about Bitcoin protocol development?

是的。

Yeah.

说实话，当你邀请我来的时候，我挺惊讶的。

I'll be honest when you asked me to come on, was kind of surprised.

我当时想，我都已经过气了，半退休状态了。

I was like, you know, I'm I'm like washed up and semi retired at this point.

他为什么想找我聊？

What does he want to talk to me for?

因为我觉得，我曾经经历过提出共识变更的过程，而我对比特币开发作为一个人类系统处理和评估这类提案的方式，其实并不怎么满意。

Because because of, you know, I think I, I had this experience navigating the process of proposing a consensus change and you know, I, I wasn't really thrilled about, the way that Bitcoin development as a human system is set up to, to kind of process and evaluate that.

很多人认为，我肯定会因此心力交瘁、变得愤世嫉俗，但说实话，从我2015年刚开始参与核心开发起，就一直在艰难地争取做点有意义的事。

And a lot of people think, I would expect that, you know, that really burned me out and jaded me, but the honest truth of it is that, you know, from the very beginning, of, of my development career in core, which was like 2015, it's really just been an uphill battle to do anything useful.

这背后有各种各样的原因，我觉得。

And that's for a variety of reasons, I think.

人们常常忘记的是，比特币不仅是密码经济、分布式系统和密码学的实验，也是关于人类组织方式的实验——尤其是开发如何运作。

One of the things that people forget is that in as much as Bitcoin is an experiment in crypto economics and distributed systems and, cryptography, it's also an experiment in human organization in terms of how the development works.

我认为，在很多年里，甚至直到Taproot之前，比特币一直遵循着一种隐性的等级制度：有少数几个人，只要他们想往某个方向走，且这个方向看起来合理、没有明显问题，事情就会朝那个方向推进。

And, you know, my belief is that for, many years, maybe up until taproot, Bitcoin operated under this sort of implicit hierarchy where there were a few guys who really, you know, if they wanted to go a certain direction and it was like plausible and there, there weren't any obvious problems, like that's the direction that things went.

但后来，这些人逐渐退出了，有些甚至明确表示：‘我不再参与共识相关的事了。’

And what happened was that those guys kind of abdicated in the sense that they stepped back and, know, in some cases explicitly said, Hey, I'm not going to do this consensus stuff anymore.

这造成了一个真空，而大家都以为这个真空会被一种无领导、按功绩选拔的、赛博朋克式的在线人类组织所填补。

And that created this, vacuum that I think everybody thought was going to be filled by, some kind of a like leaderless merit meritocratic, you know, cipherpunky online human organization.

回头来看，这种想法有点天真。

And I think that was kind of naive in hindsight.

我认为这个真空至今仍未被填补，自Taproot以来，协议实际上没有取得有意义的进展。

And I think that vacuum hasn't been filled and the protocol hasn't meaningfully progressed since Taproot.

而且，尽管有一些非常可信的提案和大量认真的工作投入，但目前并没有任何迹象表明它会取得进展。

And, and really there are no signs that it's going to, despite some very credible proposals, you know, some serious work that's been put forth.

我和杰里米花了大量时间在CTV上。

You know, me and Jeremy spent a lot of time on CTV.

我的意思是，杰里米多年来一直如此。

I mean, Jeremy, for years and years and years.

我最初是CTV的误解者和批评者。

And, I started out as a, as a sort of CTV misunderstander critic.

我不理解它。

I didn't get it.

大概在2019年我第一次接触到它的时候。

When I was first presented with it maybe in 2019.

但当我开始研究托管相关的东西时，我才终于明白了，豁然开朗。

And then, you know, when I started working on custody involves and things like that, I finally got it and it clicked.

那是在2021年。

That was in '21.