SLP55 忍者（Brian_Trollz）

欢迎收听Stefan Lovera的播客，本期聚焦比特币与奥地利经济学派。

Welcome to the Stefan Lovera podcast focused on Bitcoin and Austrian economics.

经济学。

Economics.

通过聆听比特币领域最杰出人士的访谈，学习比特币的技术与经济原理。

Learn the technology and economics of Bitcoin by listening to interviews with Bitcoin's best and brightest.

今天我采访的对象是Shinobi，他在推特上的ID是brian下划线trolls。

Today my interview is with Shinobi also known as brian underscore trolls on Twitter.

他绝对是比特币推特圈里的风云人物之一。

Definitely one of the characters of Bitcoin Twitter.

你可能注意到他在辩论帖中总是言辞犀利，但我认为他的观点很有价值。

You'll probably notice he is often fiery in his debate threads and arguments, but I think he has a worthwhile point of view to share.

希望你会喜欢他的见解。

Hope you enjoy his commentary.

Shinobi，我是你在推特和Block Digest上部分作品的粉丝。

Shinobi, I am a fan of some of your work on Twitter and Block Digest.

我认为你确实具备将技术概念通俗化的天赋，你在网络辩论中的表现也相当精彩。

I think you've got a real, talent for explaining things that are a bit more technical, and some of the work you've done with your debating online as well, think, has been quite interesting.

很荣幸能邀请你参加本期节目。

So it's a pleasure to welcome you to the show.

能来参加是我的荣幸。

It's a pleasure to be on here.

谢了，老兄。

Thanks, man.

你知道的，我平时很少上别人的节目。

You know, it's not really a usual thing for me to be going on other people's shows.

说实话，感觉有点不习惯。

Honestly, it feels kinda weird.

比如说，在这个领域里有很多比你更重要或更专业的人可以交流。

Like, there's people a lot more, important or competent in the space you could be talking to.

不。

No.

我觉得，你知道的，我觉得你分享的观点很有价值。

I think, you know, I think you've got a good point point of view to share.

所以是的。

And so yeah.

听着。

Look.

我认为你评论的很多内容某种程度上可以更...怎么说呢？

I think you you you a lot of the stuff you've commented on has been kinda it can be more what's the word?

某种程度上你可能会在网上陷入一些真正的辩论，而我觉得你解释和表达的方式相当不错。

It's kinda more you can you can get into some real debates online, and I I think the way you explain things and articulate things is quite nice.

所以是的。

So yeah.

听着。

Look.

我想也许我们可以先从莱特币的几个话题开始。

I think maybe we can just start with a few things on Litecoin.

我知道你对此有些评论。

I know you had some comments around that.

所以有些人宣扬莱特币作为所谓更便宜的支付手段这种说法。

So some people put out this narrative around Litecoin as being so called cheaper for payments.

你对此怎么看？

How would you sort of think of that?

嗯，说实话，我也是持这种观点的人之一。

Well, I mean, like, to be honest, like, I was one of the people.

我不会说我真正支持那个说法或确信它会实现，但在相当长一段时间里，我确实考虑过这种可能性。

I wouldn't say that I actually supported that narrative or was convinced it was gonna happen, but for a good while, I was open to considering the possibility.

但我的意思是，随着我越来越深入思考这个问题，所有支持它的论点在我脑海中都站不住脚，经不起逻辑推敲。

But, I mean, the the more and more I started really thinking about it, it's like all of the the arguments that I see made for it just kind of fell apart in my mind in in terms of, like, not actually holding up to logical criticism.

我认为其中最实质性的论点之一是说莱特币永远更适合支付。

And, I mean, like, the the first one, I mean, really the I think one of the most substantial ones is this argument that Litecoin is always going to be cheaper for payments.

不是故意挑刺，但我觉得这个逻辑简直像小学生水平——他们总说区块生成速度快四倍，区块空间大四倍，所以费用至少永远便宜四倍。

And, like, not to be an a hole, but I think that the logic for that is really kind of grade school level because everywhere I've ever seen it argued is that effectively the blocks come in four times as fast, there's four times as much block space, so it'll always be four times cheaper at least.

这完全不符合经济学原理。

And, like, that's absolutely not how economics works.

商品供给量就摆在那里，只要没有被完全消耗，价格就不会承受过高的竞价压力。

Like, there is a supply of something, and as long as the entire supply is not gonna be eaten up, the the the price for that isn't really gonna be subjected to heavy bidding pressure.

假设我担心的其他问题都能神奇解决，莱特币与比特币完美对接并实现无缝支付。

But let's say let's assume that all of the other issues I have with this working are just magically not issues, and everything would work perfectly for Litecoin linking into Bitcoin and seamlessly paying between them.

当功能完全相同时，价格更低的商品永远会有更大需求。

Well, there's always gonna be more demand for an equivalent good that is for utilitarian purposes identical if the price is cheaper.

因此对莱特币的需求会持续上升，直到其价格与比特币达到平衡。

And so the demand will keep picking up for that alternative good, Litecoin, until it effectively reaches an equilibrium with Bitcoin's prices.

所以即便区块空间大四倍，最终价格也会被推高到与比特币持平。

So even though there's four times much or as much block space, eventually, if this narrative were to happen, those prices would be bid up until it was just as expensive as Bitcoin.

这样看来整件事就毫无意义了。

And so, really, you're kind of looking at it's pointless then.

两个网络中哪个更有储值优势，网络效应就会扼杀另一个。

And whichever one of these networks is the superior store of value, the the bigger network effect is going to just kill the other one.

最终莱特币只有两条路可走：

And, I mean, ultimately, that kind of leaves Litecoin in one of two positions.

要么接受现实（在我看来终将消亡），要么走BCH的老路，试图永远人为压制手续费，但这本质上是在试图原子交换到一个完全中心化的系统。

Either accept that and it in my opinion, would inevitably die and shrivel up or go the B cash route and a tie or attempt to artificially keep that fee pressure at bay forever, at which point you're effectively trying to atomic swap into something that's entirely centralized.

考虑到原子交换的安全性取决于其最薄弱环节，这实际上既不安全也不可持续。

And given that an atomic swap is only as secure as the weakest side of it, that's not really secure or sustainable.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

Right.

另一个因素是，你仍需支付两条区块链上的双向手续费。

And the other component there is that you're still dealing with fees on both sides, on both blockchains.

对吧？

Right?

你既要支付比特币交易费，又要支付莱特币交易费，还要承担资产转换时可能产生的滑点损失。

You're still paying a Bitcoin transaction fee and a Litecoin transaction fee and the slippage that you might incur from translating from one asset into another.

嗯。

Mhmm.

对。

Yeah.

正是。

Exactly.

就像我前段时间用尖刻语气发了条挺混蛋的推文——或者说是推文风暴——详细驳斥了这种论调。

Like, I actually did a kind of dickish tweet in a kind of nasty tone or a tweet storm a while ago in a kind of nasty tone where I broke down, a lot of my arguments against this narrative.

打个比方，如果按某些人说的大家都用比特币储值而用莱特币交易，那我付款给商家时换成莱特币，商家又得换回比特币存储——

And it's like, if you look at it one way where supposedly everybody stores their value in Bitcoin but uses Litecoin to transact, well, if I pay a merchant and I swap over to Litecoin to do that, they have to swap back over to Bitcoin to store it.

那么问题来了：效率提升究竟体现在哪里？

And so, like, really, where where is the efficiency here?

这不过是增加了中间环节，让更多人能从中收取手续费。

You're just adding another layer or series of middlemen that are gonna have more fees.

那为什么不设计一种方式，全程使用比特币，既避免滑点又规避价格剧烈波动呢？

So why why do that instead of constructing a way to just keep with Bitcoin the whole way without exposing yourself to that slippage or the the huge variance in prices.

正是如此。

Precisely.

我认为另一个非常有趣的观点是由化名开发者Zman在闪电网络开发邮件列表的一篇开创性帖子中提出的。

And I think another really fascinating point that was made on a very seminal post on the lightning dev email list by pseudonymous developer, Zman.

他基本上提出了将闪电网络作为单一资产网络的论点。

He essentially made this argument for Lightning Network as a single asset network.

这篇帖子主要围绕HTLCs（哈希时间锁定合约）作为美式看涨期权的讨论。

And essentially, this was the post around HTLCs, hash time locked contracts as an American call option.

所以我认为这可能隐含了一些极端主义倾向。

So I think there might be potentially some maximalist implications from that.

你能对此发表评论吗？

Can you comment on that?

是的。

Yeah.

大致来说，这个论点是：假设你有一个闪电节点，上面有流动性——我们以比特币和莱特币为例。

I mean, pretty much the the argument goes, if you have a Lightning node that has liquidity on, let's use Bitcoin and Litecoin as the example here.

没有什么能阻止我在比特币端向莱特币端的自己发送支付，然后除非莱特币对比特币升值，否则我就不释放哈希锁的原像。

There's nothing to stop me from just sending a payment on the Bitcoin side to myself on the Litecoin side and then just not releasing the, pre image for the the hash lock unless bit or Litecoin goes up in price versus Bitcoin.

这样我就可以像持有美式看涨期权一样操作，本质上我购买的是获得资产的权利而非义务。

So I can just sit there and effectively do what's the an American call option, which is pretty much, I buy the right to take possession of an asset, but not the obligation.

在传统市场中，通常是通过抵押品来解决这个问题的。

And usually in conventional markets, how that's dealt with is effectively putting up a collateral.

如果我买入看涨期权但选择不行权，我仍然会损失抵押品，这种机制可以抑制这种可以自由投机直到对我有利的策略。

So if I buy a call option and I choose not to exercise it, I still forfeit that collateral is kind of a disincentive for this this kind of strategy where I can just speculate freely without any negative consequence until it goes my way.

说实话——当然我可能完全错了——但我个人认为除非采取某些集中化措施，否则无法真正解决这个问题。

And so I really don't see and again, you know, I'm I definitely could be wrong here, but I personally don't see a way to actually solve this without either centralizing payments made in this way.

比如建立某种需要身份验证的声誉系统来通过这种方式支付，或者引入接收方无法控制哈希锁的集中化因素，再或者对闪电支付尝试收取费用等。

So creating some kind of reputation system where you have to kind of identify yourself to make a payment through this or some kind of centralizing factor where you're taking the hash lock and not having it in the receiver's control on the other side or introducing things like fees for just attempted lightning payments.

在我看来，这种做法破坏了路由的概念和可扩展性，因为如果我必须为每次尝试的支付（即使不成功）付费，最终我会耗尽可负担的支付尝试次数，而且如果最终无法完成支付，仍然会消耗我的资金。

And that kind of breaks the the the notion and scalability of routing from what I see because if I have to pay for every attempted, like, payment, even if it doesn't succeed, well, that's eventually, I I'm gonna run out of tries to make a payment that I can afford and it still costs me money if I can't make it at the end.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为这可能从根本上反对通过闪电网络实现比特币与莱特币原子交换的概念，这完全是由其运作机制决定的。

I think it it may potentially be a strike against this concept of being able to do atomic swaps, Bitcoin to Litecoin via Lightning Network just because of the construction of the way it works.

我的意思是，我认为它们在真实交易所场景下是可以运作的。

I mean, I I think they can work in the the realm of an an actual exchange.

比如我专门为了投机目的交易这种资产。

Like, I am specifically trading this asset for speculative purposes.

我只是看不到它们能在'用比特币支付而对方接收另一种货币'这种无缝支付场景下运作的可能性。

I just don't see a way that they can work in the the context of, like, making a seamless payment where I'm paying with Bitcoin and you're receiving in another currency.

我仍然认为这种模式对实际交易所类型的架构是有用的，只是不像跨货币的无缝去中心化支付那样。

Like, I I still think this can be useful for, like, an actual exchange type, construct, just not like a seamless decentralized payment across currencies.

对。

Right.

是以中心化信任交易所的方式完成，而不是以我们称之为'信任最小化'的原子交换机制实现。

Done in the centralized trusting the exchange way rather than the atomic swap mechanism done in the kind of trust minimized way, let's call it.

好的。

Okay.

明白。

Cool.

我想讨论的另一个话题是机密交易，很期待听听你的看法。

I think another topic I was interested to get your thoughts on and discuss is confidential transactions.

显然，能够隐藏交易金额可以大幅提升隐私性。

So obviously, it can lead to much better privacy being able to blind the amounts of the transactions.

但这也可能存在隐性通胀风险，可能会削弱我们对比特币2100万枚上限的信心保障。

However, there is potentially the risk of silent inflation, may reduce our level of comfort or our assurance that Bitcoin has a 21,000,000 cap.

现在使用El Gamal承诺和Paytison承诺之间存在权衡，此外还有Switch承诺。

Now there are trade offs here between using El Gamal commitments and Paytison commitments, and then there's also Switch commitments.

你能为听众们简单解释一下吗？

So can you just break that down a little bit for the listeners?

嗯，我的意思是，这主要是我在转述Adam Back或其他更资深密码学家告诉我的内容。

Well, I mean, this is mostly gonna be me kind of just going over things I have been told by people like, Adam Back or other more experienced cryptographers in the space.

所以我想先声明清楚。

So I just want to be clear here.

我很可能会在这里说错话。

Like, I very well might wind up misspeaking here.

但根据我的理解，El Gamal承诺是量子安全的。

But from my understanding of all this, the the El Gamal commitments are quantum safe.

这意味着它可以保护我们免受隐形通胀攻击。

So that would be something that could protect us from silent inflation attacks.

但问题是它们比Pedersen承诺占用空间大得多。

But the issue is that they're much larger than the Pedersen commitments.

在我看来，Algomel与Pedersen承诺的核心问题在于——特别是考虑到bulletproofs技术时——我可以（或者说你们可以）将bulletproof的承诺进行压缩。

And the part of the the kind of issue, really, I see with Algomel versus Pedersen commitments, especially looking at things like bulletproofs, is I can or you you can condense, the commitments for a bulletproof.

假设我们10个人共同创建一个CT币混交易。

So let's say we all get together and, like, 10 people make a CT coin join.

使用bulletproofs技术时，所有承诺可以压缩成一个，且参与者增加时体积不会显著增长。

With bulletproofs, that can all be condensed into one commitment that doesn't really grow that much for each participant in it.

这就形成了一种经济激励来促进其使用。

And so that kind of creates an economic incentive, to encourage the use of it.

要知道，使用CT最终可能支付更少费用——尽管单笔含承诺的交易确实比不含承诺的交易体积大。

You know, you you can wind up actually paying less using CT even though, you know, one transaction with one commitment is is bigger than a transaction without a commitment.

就像是在输入输出一对一的场景下。

You're like just, you know, one to one in terms of inputs and outputs.

但这种承诺的压缩，正是经济激励使用它的方式。

But that condensing of the commitments, it's the way to economically incentivize using it.

但那些帕特森承诺并不具备量子安全性，因此会让网络面临隐性通胀的风险。

But those Patterson commitments are not quantum safe, so that puts the network at risk of silent inflation.

而且，在限制潜在损害能力方面确实存在一些构想。

And, like, there are some ideas in terms of trying to limit the ability that that could damage things.

比如说，有人研究过这种扩展区块的概念，它通过彼得森承诺来记录比特币供应量中有多少属于机密交易输出。

Like, for instance, I've, some people have gone over this idea of kind of an extension block that commits to how much of the Bitcoin supply is within CT outputs using Pettersen commitments.

这样即使系统被攻破，所有人都能转移资金，同时确保锁定在机密交易中的合法代币数量不会流向非机密交易输出。

So that let's say it's broken, everybody could move their coins out, and it would not allow more than the legitimate amount of coins locked up in CT to go to non CT outputs.

但我的顾虑是，这反而会从一开始就抑制人们使用机密交易的意愿。

But my issue with that is that creates kind of a disincentive to even use CT in the first place.

因为如果有人攻破系统，而我们采用这种机制，他们立刻就会察觉。

Because if somebody breaks something and we're using a mechanism like that, they're gonna know it.

所以他们会在攻破后立即开始将资金从机密交易输出转移到非机密交易输出。

So they are going to break it and immediately start moving their coins out of CT, outputs into non CT outputs.

基本上，是的，这能阻止系统中供应量的系统性崩坏。

And so pretty much, yeah, it would stop the the systemic destruction of the supply in the system.

但如果这种情况发生，那些合法使用机密交易的持币者很可能会血本无归，

But if you had that happen, legitimate people with legitimate coins using CT would likely just wind up screwed and,

比如，他们

like, they

都会损失资金。

would all lose their money.

是的。

Yes.

现阶段采用这种方式可能并不安全。

It's not a safe way to go about it at this point potentially.

此外还有这个切换承诺的概念。

And then there is also this concept of switch commitments as well.

我对此还没有深入研究，但我的理解是Tim Ruffing提出了这个想法：先使用一种承诺类型，然后切换

So I I haven't done a huge amount of reading into this, but my understanding is Tim Ruffing came up with this idea of starting with one type of commitment and then switching

到另一种。

to another.

基本上就是从Patterson承诺开始，然后切换到Algamal承诺。

Pretty much be starting with, Patterson commitments and committing to an Algamel commitment.

但我对这个想法仍有疑虑，因为我认为这会带来巨大的社会攻击因素，以及可能导致网络分裂的非零风险。

But I still have a problem with this idea because I think it creates a huge social attack factor and a a very nonzero risk of splitting the network.

因为实际上，逻辑是这样的：我们先使用Pedersen承诺，当使用这些变得不安全时，我们会分叉并废止Pedersen承诺的使用，要求改用Algamal承诺。

Because effectively, what the the logic is is we start using Pedersen commitments, and then when it becomes unsafe to use those, we would fork and invalidate the use of Pedersen commitments and require the use of Algomel commitments.

但是，同样地，Algamal的经济激励方面更大、更昂贵，据我所知目前无法像bulletproofs那样被压缩。

But, like, again, there's the the whole economic incentive aspect of Algomel are bigger, more expensive, to my knowledge right now, cannot be condensed the way that bulletproofs can.

我认为这开启了一个巨大的社会攻击向量，因为你如何决定什么时候不安全？

And I think that opens up a huge social attack vector because how do you decide when it's not safe?

这基本上是一个社会协调问题。

That's pretty much a a social coordination problem.

当人们开始拉响警报时会发生什么？

And what happens when people start sounding the alarm?

比如，这会如何被看待？

Like, how is that going to be perceived?

会不会被当作'别危言耸听了，我们暂时还不需要担心这个'而被忽视？

Is that gonna be dismissed as, oh, stop fear mongering, you know, we don't have to worry about this for a while?

有多少人会以此为借口不支持它，因为他们不想支付更高的费用？

How many people are going to latch on to that as a reason to not support it because they don't want to pay more in fees?

在我看来，这变成了一个非常棘手的问题：到底会发生什么，我们最终是否会看到网络分裂，当第一批人开始试图拉响警报要求切换到Algamal时。

I mean, it it becomes a very sticky issue in my mind in terms of what happens, and do we wind up seeing a network split potentially when the the first group of people start trying to sound the alarm to switch to the Algam Alchemist.

没错。

Right.

有些人可能会不同意，他们可能会说，不。

And some people might disagree, and they might say, no.

我认为你下结论为时过早。

I think you're calling it too early.

我还是希望能保留成本更低的Pederson承诺方案。

I still wanna have my Peterson cheaper commitments.

人们可以从很多不同角度提出异议，我想根据我的理解，你本质上是在主张就现有技术而言，现阶段我们最好不要采用那条技术路线。

There there's a lot of different ways people could argue and disagree, and it may be, I I suppose, as as I understand you then, you're essentially arguing and saying that we are better off not going down that pathway at this point in time, given the technology we have.

嗯。

Mhmm.

如果要我支持任何形式的保密交易，我会希望直接采用Elgamal承诺方案。

I mean, if if I were to support any form of confidential transactions myself, I would want to just go straight to Algamal commitments.

应该选择最健全安全的方案，而不是玩这些拖延战术，为了短期效益而冒险，这种策略可能带来潜在风险。

Like, go to the thing that is as sound and secure as possible and not try to play these these games of, you know, pushing things off or getting temporary savings as long as we can, given the potential risks I see coming along with that type of strategy.

确实。

Right.

实际上要实现Elgamal承诺可能不可行，考虑到区块大小以及对全节点运行能力的影响。

And in order to actually get El Gamal commitments, it may just not be feasible just given the size of the blocks and what that would do to the centralization or the decentralization of being able to run a full node.

我认为不一定非要这样。

I mean, I don't think it would necessarily have to.

我知道很多人希望通过扩大区块容量来抵消影响，但我个人不支持这种做法。

I know a lot of people want, if if we were to do something like that, to increase the block size to kind of counter that, but I would personally not support something like that.

因此采用Elgamal承诺方案会消耗更多验证资源，区块大小不变但实际交易吞吐量会降低——如果按我期望的方式实现的话。

So effectively using, Elgamal commitments would pretty much be I I think it would it would take more resources to validate things, but it would just be the same size blocks and then less actual transaction throughput possible with that if things were done the way I would hope they would be.

明白了。

Right.

我的意思是，如果有足够多的人使用闪电网络，理论上所需的区块空间可能会减少，届时人们可能会更愿意使用Elkemell承诺方案，不过可能不是现在，而是未来的某个时候。

And, I mean, it may potentially be that if there's enough people who use, say, Lightning that maybe the amount of block space required in some theoretical sense could could come down, and maybe then people would be okay comfortable to use Elkemell commitments, but maybe not now, but at some point in the future.

有可能。

Potentially.

老实说，从我的角度来看，我宁愿将机密交易（CT）排除在主链之外，尽量在不依赖它的情况下实现尽可能多的隐私性和可互换性改进，先看看这样能达到什么效果，再考虑是否强行将其纳入链中——毕竟这涉及到基础加密原理，而且在我看来，它可能带来的负面影响还存在很大灰色地带。

I mean, like, honestly, from my perspective, I I would rather just leave CT out of the main chain and try to get as as many privacy and fungibility improvements without it and really see where that leaves us standing before a push to just kind of try and shoehorn this into the chain, given, like, that it pretty much comes down to the fundamentals of the actual cryptography involved and that it's it's just a really big gray area, in my opinion, in terms of the downsides that could come along with it.

哦，同意。

Oh, agreed.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为在这一点上我基本同意你的观点。

I think, I pretty much agree with you on this.

不过我想暂且扮演一下魔鬼代言人的角色。

But I suppose just to sort of play the devil's advocate role.

那关于Wasabi钱包使用场景的论点呢？现在进行币混时存在某些问题，比如需要使用等额输入，而机密交易可能有助于提升用户通过币混获得的隐私性。

What about the argument that say, when you wanna use Wasabi Wallet, the fact that confidential transactions might help in terms of improving the privacy that somebody gets by doing a coin join compared to right now where, you know, there are certain problems and the the there's a use of equal inputs, for example.

对。

Yeah.

在我看来，这基本上就是CT的主要优势——你看不到具体金额。

I mean, it would that's pretty much the the main benefit of CT, in my mind is it's the fact that you don't see the amounts.

虽然你仍然可以识别出离散的输出，但这解决了币混过程中金额协调的大部分问题，因为现在所有输出都只是输出而已。

Like, you still have discrete outputs that you can identify as an individual output, but that that solves most of the coordination problems with coin joins in terms of amounts because they're all just outputs now.

不再需要保持相同金额。

You don't have to have the same amounts.

它还能帮助识别找零输出等问题，不过并不能完全消除区分单个输出的能力。

And it would also help with things like identifying change outputs or just, you know, it it doesn't completely get rid of the ability to distinguish individual outputs.

它只是摧毁了链分析用来识别交易模式的大部分统计假设。

It just destroys most of the statistical assumptions that chain analysis uses to identify, transactional patterns in them.

太棒了。

Fantastic.

是啊。

Yeah.

我喜欢你阐述的方式。

Like the way you articulated that.

我认为当我们讨论区块大小这个话题时，显然推特上最近有点——我称之为轻微推动小区块的趋势，但这对比特币现阶段来说未必是最佳选择。

And I think while we're on this whole topic of block sizes as well, so obviously on Twitter there's been a little bit of a I'd call it a slight push towards smaller blocks, but that may not not necessarily be the best thing for Bitcoin right now.

但在你看来，是什么在推动这种趋势？

But in your view, what's what's driving this push?

说实话，在我看来这纯粹是出于对未来发展的前瞻性思考。

Honestly, in my opinion, it's really just thinking ahead to the future.

我的意思是，如果我们采用Luke Junior当前的数据，过去一年里，包括非公开可达节点在内的节点数量已经从10万个下降到了约5.5万个。

I mean, if if we're like, if we took, Luke Junior's figures right now, over the last year, we've seen the node count, including non publicly reachable nodes go from a 100,000 nodes down to, like, 55,000.

这算是短期内的统计分析结果。

And so that is kind of a short term, statistical analysis of things.

当然也存在其他可能的解释，比如正好与2017年12月市场冲高回落等行情同步。

Although there are other potential explanations just like coinciding with the the market moving to the the high in December 2017 and down and so on.

但我认为最重要的原因还是验证的开放性问题。

But really, I think that the biggest reason for this is just open access to validation.

因为从带宽数据、带宽提升以及CPU性能的摩尔定律来看，每年低端设备的性能提升大约在17%左右。

Because looking at the the figures of bandwidth and the bandwidth improvements and, Moore's law regarding CPU improvements, I mean, it's somewhere around, you know, like 17%, improvement year over year on the low end.

而在发达地区，带宽提升甚至可以达到50%。

And with bandwidth, it can be as much as 50 in, you know, well developed areas.

但做这类决策时，我认为关键是要始终关注低端配置的情况。

But, you know, with decisions like this, I think the important thing is to always look at the low end.

根据Luke的预测，在欠发达地区每年17%的提升速度下——虽然我记不清具体年份了

And looking at that 17% improvement in less developed parts of the world, based on Luke's projections, I I don't have the exact years.

我试着在Slack的对话记录里往回找过，但日志会滚动覆盖删除内容。

I I tried looking, back for them in a Slack conversation I was having with him, but the the logs roll over and delete things.

但主要问题在于所需资源，以及初始区块下载的难度在2030年前会持续恶化。

But it was pretty much the the resources required and the the difficulty in doing the initial block download is going to continue getting worse and worse until the end of the twenty twenties.

假设低端带宽提升和摩尔定律能持续（实际上很可能跟不上预期），或者中美贸易关系出问题打乱推动技术进步的市场经济动态呢？

And it's not going to in terms of assuming that these bandwidth improvements on the low end and Moore's law continue, which they very well could wind up not keeping up with these projections or, you know, something could happen with trade relations with China and and just screw up the the market dynamics that are driving tech improvements?

我们无法预知未来。

Like, we we don't know.

但如果一切顺利且增长符合预期，要到2040年代末才能恢复到当前IBD的相对难度水平。

But assuming things go well and this growth keeps up with these projections, it will not get back to the relative difficulty of the IBD now until, like, late twenty forty.

因此我认为，至少我的观点是：我们需要调整这条即将达到峰值且需要很长时间才能回落的曲线，让欠发达地区能更早获得验证所需的资源和能力。

And so I think the at least my my opinion on the logic here is trying to take that curve, which is gonna hit a peak and take a while to get back to now and bring it down so that the less developed parts of the world will have the the ability and the resources to access and validate things sooner.

对。

Right.

另外需要考虑的是，社区里很多爱好者喜欢用树莓派搭建节点。

And, I guess one thing to consider there is many enthusiasts in the community like to do the whole Raspi node.

对吧？

Right?

比如有Raspi Blitz和Raspi Bolt这些方案。

They like to there's the Raspi Blitz and the Raspi Bolt, for example.

你是否认为未来五到十年可能会出现这种情况——这类低功耗设备将无法运行完整节点？

And do you believe there might be some kind of concern that maybe in five, ten years time, could it be that you would not be able to run a full node off one of those kind of low power devices?

是的。

Yeah.

这确实是个非常现实的问题。

I do think that's a very real concern.

不过就发达国家而言，我认为届时会有同等价位但性能更强的设备来解决这个问题。

But on on that note, at least in the developed parts of the world, I don't think that's necessarily an issue because I think by the time that starts becoming a problem, there will be more powerful devices of an equivalent price point that that would be able to handle that.

我是说，市面上已经有很多树莓派的替代品，价格只贵20或30美元，但计算能力却强得多。

I mean, there's there's already a lot of Raspberry Pi alternatives that are only, like, 20 or $30 more with a lot more computational power to them.

对。

Right.

对。

Right.

我认为另一个关键点是要考虑到，不仅仅是区块大小本身，还包括维护UTXO集。

And I think another key point here is to consider that it's not just the block size itself, but also maintaining the UTXO set.

你能稍微谈谈这一点吗？

Could you comment a little bit on that?

好的。

Yeah.

我觉得很多人过分关注区块大小，把它当作系统可扩展性的关键变量，但在我看来这完全偏离了重点。

I think, you know, a lot of people obsess over the block size as kind of the the key variable in the scalability of the system, and, like, that could not be more wrong or off point in my opinion.

真正重要的是UTXO集，也就是链尖端的未花费输出集合。

It's it's the actual UTXO set, the collection of unspent outputs at the tip of the chain.

这个集合没有直接的大小限制。

And that has no direct size limitation.

它只是间接受限于区块大小，因为每个区块中只能更新或添加这么多UTXO集内容。

Like, it only indirectly is throttled by the block size in the sense that you can only update or add to that UTXO set so much in each given block.

最终你必须拥有这个UTXO集才能验证一个区块。

And ultimately, like, you have to have that UTXO set to validate a block.

你需要检查区块中的每笔交易，确保每个输入都有效包含在UTXO集中。

Like, you have to go through every single transaction in a block and make sure that each input is validly included in the UTXO set.

所以如果没有有效的UTXO集副本，从字面上讲就不可能验证一个区块。

And so it's it's literally impossible to validate a block without having a valid copy of the UTXO set.

这就是我对讨论区块扩容的最大担忧——每次区块大小增加，都可能导致UTXO集增长速度呈指数级上升。

And, like, this is really my big concern with talking about block size increases, is you're you're talking about, like, for each increase of the block size, you're talking about potential exponential increases in the rate at which that UTXO set can grow.

我认为很多人必须接受的一个残酷现实是，从长远来看，让地球上每个人都拥有自己的UTXO和UTXO端是不可行的。

And one of the hard realities, I think, that a lot of people have to accept here is that it's not viable in the long term, for every individual person on this planet to have their own UTXO and the UTXO side.

我的意思是，除非开发出一些重大的新解决方案，否则这实际上是不可能的。

Like, I do not think that that is, an actual possibility without some huge, like, new solutions developed.

这根本不切实际。

Like, that's just not practical.

对。

Right.

我猜你是在暗示通道工厂之类的解决方案？

And I suppose you're kind of implying a little bit around channel factories then?

是的。

Yeah.

我认为通道工厂最大的潜力之一，就是能够实现类似冷存储池的功能，可以让多达100人将资金集中到一个输出中，然后通过预先签名的拆分交易随时提取资金并转移到别处。

I mean, like, one of the biggest potentials for channel factories, I think, is, you know, the ability to do something like a cold storage pool where you could effectively, like, have, like, up to, like, a 100 or something people put all of their money into one output and then just have, like, presigned splice out transactions so that you could just pull your money out and put it somewhere else.

如果这种方案专门用于冷存储，人们可以让资金长期存放在里面，同时建立一套拆分交易网络，当其他人无法操作或不愿配合提取资金时仍可使用。

And, I mean, if, like this is being exclusively used for cold storage, I mean, people could just let money sit in something like that for quite a long time and still have like a web of splice outs that could be used if other people aren't available or or cooperating and pulling their own money up.

哦，真有意思。

Oh, fascinating.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为围绕UTXO集的担忧部分源于对其进一步碎片化还是压缩的激励问题。

And I think part of what's driving some of this concern around the UTXO set is also the incentive to either further fragment the UTXO set versus to condense that UTXO set.

你能为听众简单解释一下这个问题吗？

Can you just explain a little bit around that for the listeners?

好的。

Yeah.

我想很多人已经忘记了2017-2018年纽约协议、UASF和之后的Bcash闹剧之后的事。隔离见证的结构设计初衷——通过见证折扣让签名数据支付更低手续费——正是为了纠正这种不当激励。

I think, you know, a lot of people kind of forget this after the 2017 and 2018 with, you know, all of the the nonsense surrounding the New York agreement, the UASF, and then Bcash afterwards, is part of the whole rationale for how SegWit was structured in terms of the witness discount, where you pay less in, in fees for the actual signature data was to correct that kind of misincentive.

比如，如果你根据交易的实际数据大小来支付网络费用。

Like, if you pay fees on the network based on the actual data size of a transaction.

所以如果你拿10个交易输入并试图压缩成一个输出，相比拿一个输入分割成四五个输出，压缩输出的成本要比分割它们高得多。

So if you take 10 transaction inputs and try to condense those into one output versus take one input and and kind of fragment those into, like, four or five outputs, you're paying more for condensing outputs than you are for fragmenting them.

这种经济激励会鼓励人们总是创建更多UTXO而非压缩它们。

And that kind of is an economic incentive to encourage always creating more UTXOs instead of condensing.

虽然隔离见证并没有完全消除这种成本差异，但它大幅缩小了差距。

And while SegWit doesn't completely, like, make those even costs, it it brought down the disparity a lot.

我认为这正是隔离见证实施方案设计理念的重要部分。

And I like, that was a a big part of the the design rationale for how SegWit was implemented.

对。

Right.

我想为可能不太了解这点的听众解释一下。

And I suppose I'll just explain for the listeners who maybe aren't as, aware on this.

本质上，交易大小的关键因素之一就是该交易包含的UTXO数量。

Essentially, one of the key drivers of the size of the transaction is the number of UTXOs that go into that transaction.

显然，交易体积越大（以KB计），需要支付的聪（手续费）自然就越多。

And then obviously, the larger that transaction is in terms of kilobytes, that takes up more, obviously, Satoshis that you have to pay as a fee.

所以你的意思是，如果有人将10个不同UTXO合并，某种程度上他们需要为花费这10个UTXO支付更高成本。

So I think what you're getting at there is to help explain that if somebody were to take 10 different UTXOs and consolidate them, in some sense, they would be paying a bigger cost to spend those 10 UTXOs.

但这样做实际上是在帮助压缩UTXO集合，从而缓解比特币区块链这个需要所有人共同维护的公共资源悲剧问题。

But in doing so, they are helping condense the UTXO set, therefore helping reduce that tragedy of the commons problem into the overarching Bitcoin blockchain that everyone has to maintain.

正是如此。

Exactly.

考虑到输入部分包含签名，而签名可能占交易体积的60%甚至更多，这确实是交易的最大组成部分。

And, you know, given, the fact that the input is where the signature is, and the signature can be up to, like, 60, you know, or more percent of a transaction size, like, is, like, the biggest part of a transaction.

所以在引入隔离见证的见证数据折扣之前，这种差异非常巨大。

And so that's a huge disparity before the the SegWit witness discount was introduced.

太棒了。

Fantastic.

我想，当我们讨论运行节点时，另一个值得探讨的话题是：你对即插即用节点改变游戏规则有何看法？

And I suppose the other thing to talk about when we're talking about, you know, running nodes, what are your thoughts around plug and play nodes changing the game?

比如Casa有一个，Noddle有一个，Lightning in a Box，Samurai Dojo也即将推出。

So for example, Casa has one, Noddle has one, Lightning in a Box, Samurai Dojo are coming out with one.

你对此有何看法？

What are your thoughts there?

我认为这对非技术用户来说是件好事，比如你的父母、祖父母，举个极端例子，甚至那些连录像机时钟都不会设置的人。

I think that it's it's a nice thing to have for the the really nontechnical users, you know, like your your parents, your your grandparents, like people who, you know, to be a little extreme in the example, can't even figure out how to program the clock on the VCR.

对。

Right.

对。

Right.

另一个因素是目前闪电网络的现状。

And the other component is also just right now with lightning.

我们还没有部署中微子协议，也就是BIP 157和158。

So we don't have neutrino, which is BIP one fifty seven and one fifty eight in place.

因此用户要真正参与闪电主网，通常还需要运行全节点。

So for people to actually properly participate in Lightning Mainnet, typically, they have to run a full node as well.

你认为这会改变游戏规则，鼓励更多人使用全节点吗？还是说随着中微子协议上线主网，人们会选择中微子方案而非运行全节点来支持他们的闪电网络活动？

So do you believe that will help change the game in terms terms of encouraging more full node use, or do you think that perhaps the with Neutrino coming out on main net that people will opt for the Neutrino option rather than running a full node supporting their their lightning behavior?

老实说，我认为最终可能会导致更少人使用全节点。

I think, honestly, it'll probably lead to less people using, full nodes, in in the end of the day.

中微子协议的设计初衷主要是为了改进隐私，替代布隆过滤器——这是SPV钱包过去（或多数现在仍在使用）的机制，那些通过随机查询节点获取余额的所谓真正SPV钱包，实际上更容易破坏保护余额隐私的假设条件，识别出哪些币属于你。

I mean, like, most of the the rationale for Neutrino was was mostly just a privacy improvement against Bloom filters, which is the mechanism that SPV wallets, used to use or most still do, true SPV wallets anyways, ones that query random nodes to get your balances, which are a lot easier to actually kind of break the the assumptions that keep your balances private and identify which coins are yours.

而布隆过滤器的原理是：你生成过滤器发送给节点，但同时会混入大量实际上与你的币无关的虚假查询请求。

Whereas because it's pretty much the boom filters, you have the the filters, and send them to the the node, but you include a bunch of, pretty much dummy requests that are gonna connect to coins that aren't yours.

而Neutrino协议，你从节点获取过滤器，并在本地端筛选以抓取你认为相关的完整区块。

Whereas Neutrino, you're getting filters from a node and actually looking through on your local side to grab a whole block that you think has things relevant to you.

所以你并没有向全节点提供任何能真正识别你代币的信息，除了你查询的区块可能包含你的代币。

So you're not giving a full node anything they can really use to identify your coins except, you know, the potential that the blocks you're querying have your coins in them.

这个范围其实相当大。

And that's a pretty big set.

通常每个区块会有两三千笔交易。

It's usually, you know, like, two or 3,000 transactions per block.

对。

Right.

好的。

Okay.

另外谈到区块大小和区块权重时，开发者的时间和精力也是有限的资源。

And I think the other thing just when we're talking about block size and block weight, the other thing is there is only a limited, capacity in terms of developer time and work.

现阶段推动缩小区块规模真的比推动Schnoor、Taproot、Graftroot等技术更有价值吗？

Is it really worth pushing for smaller blocks at this point in time versus pushing for things like Schnoor, Taproot, Graftroot?

老实说，我确实希望看到更小的区块，但如果明显缺乏共识，我不会贸然推动软件部署。

Well, I mean, honestly, like, I very much would like to see smaller blocks, but I am not about to go run out and start encouraging software deployment if it's clear that there is not consensus on something.

即使作为支持者，目前也很清楚这方面尚未达成共识。

And I mean, it's even as somebody who wants to see it happen, it's pretty clear right now that there is not consensus on doing that.

但就开发者注意力而言，真要实施这个方案也不会造成太大精力分散。

But, you know, as far as developer attention, I really don't think it's it's that much of a an attention diversion if we were to do this.

缩减区块规模并不需要研究新的密码学结构或数学理论来确保安全性。

Like, a a block size decrease is not you know, it it doesn't really involve, you know, checking new cryptographic constructions or mathematical research to encourage the soundness of something.

只是部署限制区块大小的软件而已。

It's just deploying software that would restrict the block size more.

所以如果有共识，我认为这不会显著分流其他正在推进的开发项目的智力资源。

So I if there were consensus, I really don't think it would be that much of a significant brain drain away from other developments coming down the pipeline.

好的。

Okay.

有道理。

Fair enough.

有道理。

Fair enough.

对于Schnorr、Taproot、Graftroot以及签名聚合等技术，您还期待看到哪些其他优势？

Do you have any thoughts around other benefits that you are keen to see coming out of Schnorr, Taproot, Grafroot, and potentially around aggregation of signatures?

哦，是的。

Oh, yeah.

我对此非常期待，主要是因为它们能提升货币的可互换性。

I I am really excited to see those just because of the the fungibility improvements.

我的意思是，使用Schnorr后，只要操作是协作完成的，你就无法区分闪电通道的开启和关闭。

I mean, you know, with Schnorr, like, you you're not gonna be able to tell opening and closing of a Lightning channel as long as it happens cooperatively.

比如，你将无法判断被花费的币是否来自多重签名地址。

Like, you won't be able to tell that coins being spent were part of a multisig address.

通过Taproot和Graftroot，你可以隐藏所有其他条件——只要参与者配合，交易看起来就和普通交易完全一样。

With Taproot, like, you can you know, Taproot and Graphroot, you can hide all of the other conditions to the point where if you don't have to resort to them because of, you know, people not cooperating, then it's it's just a normal transaction.

而这正是可互换性的核心——让所有交易看起来毫无差别。

And, like, that's all or that's what, like, the the fungibility is all about, making everything look the same.

特别是Graftroot让我非常兴奋，它允许人们在不实际转移UTXO的情况下嵌入新的支出条件。

And, you know, graftroot, especially, I am really excited about because that allows people to shoehorn in new spending conditions without actually moving coins to a new UTXO.

我对Graftroot特别感兴趣，因为它在解决币所有权和遗产继承等问题上具有巨大潜力。

So, I mean, like, Graftroot, I am especially interested in seeing because I see a lot of potential there for solutions to a lot of problems in terms of coin ownership and, you know, people's estates.

我们可以用它来解决遗产继承等现有难题——当意外发生时，无需持续转移币到新脚本，就能构建出新颖的解决方案。

Like, we could see a lot of the the problems in terms of giving, you know, coins to your inheritance or, you know, like, pretty much every problem that exists right now in terms of leaving your coins to somebody else if something happens to you, I think Kraftroot can really help build a lot of new interesting constructs for that without requiring you to, like, actively keep moving your coins to lock them to a new script.

没错。

Right.

我认为你想表达的是，当花费UTXO时，你可以对它们施加某种限制条件。

And I think what you're getting at there is that when you spend UTXOs, you can place a certain encumbrance upon them.

而通过Taproot、Graftroot等技术，你可以开始使用更高级的限制形式。

And with Taproot and Grafroot and so on, you can start using more advanced forms of an encumbrance.

这也是你想表达的意思吗？

Is that kind of what you're getting out there as well?

嗯对，两者都能实现更高级的功能，但关键区别在于Taproot的脚本树是相对固定的。

Well, yeah, both of them allow you to get more advanced, but the the key differentiation between taproot is, like, it's it a taproot script tree is kind of set in stone.

所以如果想修改Taproot，你必须转移到新的UTXO，并建立包含不同花费路径的新脚本树。

So, like, with Taproot, if you wanted to change it, you would have to move to a new UTXO with a new script tree with different spending paths.

但Graftroot的核心理念不同，它不是通过默克尔树来承诺不同路径，而是让UTXO对应的密钥直接签署新脚本并保存。

But with Kraftroot, like, the whole, difference is instead of a a Merkle tree committing to the different paths, graftroot is just the keys that the UTXO is at signing a new script, and then you keep that.

只要你能提供证明——即资金对应的密钥已签署这个新脚本的签名，现在就能花费这些币。

And you can spend those coins now as long as you have the signature proving that the the key that it's encumbered to, signed this new script.

因此使用Graftroot时，我完全可以让闲置两年的币保持不动，只需收集所有锁定密钥签署新脚本后转交给你。

So with graftroot, you can literally like, I can have coins that have been sitting there for, like, two years, and I can just get all the keys that it's locked to and sign a new script and give it to you.

然后你就能用这个新脚本花费那些从未移动过的同批币。

And then you can spend them, though, those same coins that haven't moved with that new script.

没错。

Right.

所以这很有帮助。

So it helps.

这是个精妙的设计，能减少区块链的使用频率。

It's a clever construction in that it enables less use of the blockchain.

确实能减少UTXO的移动次数。

It enables, yes, less, you know, movements in terms of UTXOs.

正是如此。

Exactly.

太棒了。

Fantastic.

好的。

Okay.

对于扩展的不同方法以及我们将面临的权衡取舍，你还有其他想法吗？

Do you have any other thoughts on kind of different approaches to scaling and the, you know, the the trade offs that we will face?

说实话，我在这个领域最大的失望之一就是人们对改进托管解决方案缺乏兴趣。

I mean, honestly, like, one of my biggest, I guess, disappointments in this space is the lack of interest in improving custodial solutions.

因为现实很残酷——除非你只想不断增大区块容量，但这会损害底层网络的去中心化，让长期手续费市场的可持续性越来越成问题。我们必须在最后一公里做出妥协，才能处理常规零售使用场景的交易量。

Because, I mean, it's just a cold hard reality unless you want to just keep increasing the block size, which will damage the decentralization of the underlying network, put the sustainability of the long term fee market more and more into question, we're going to have to make last mile trade offs to actually transact, on the kind of volume that you do with, you know, normal retail use of something.

其实我个人对托管解决方案本身没有意见。

And, like, I don't really have a problem in and of itself with custodial solutions.

问题在于似乎没人有兴趣设计能最大限度保留比特币核心特性的方案，比如保护用户隐私，让托管方难以识别并基于交易关联方进行审查。

It's the fact that nobody seems interested in engineering them in a way that preserves as much of those core properties of Bitcoin as you can, like keeping users privacy, making it as difficult as possible for that custodian to pick out individual transactions and censor them based on who's involved with them.

我最近在推特上为了这个Tip和Knee项目大吵了一架。

And, you know, I I I recently kinda got into a huge shit fit about this this tip and knee project on Twitter.

这件事真的让我很恼火，因为人们忙着开发这种托管式闪电解决方案，却没人关注构建Chaumian电子现金服务器——这明明是比比特币早三十年的技术，作为托管方案能在大规模应用时让托管方几乎无法识别和审查单笔交易。

And, like, I I'm really kind of pissed off about it because, you know, you have people building custodial lightning solutions like this and nobody seems to be interested in looking at building Chow Me and E cash servers, which is literally something that predates Bitcoin by almost thirty years, which is a custodial solution where it at at a big scale, it's pretty much impossible for the custodian to pick out and censor individual transactions.

托管方几乎不可能分辨出付款方和收款方。

It's it's almost impossible for the custodian to identify who is paying who.

这是一种既能提供托管服务，又能保持抗审查性和隐私性的方案。

Like, it's a custodial solution that that maintains that censorship resistance and that privacy.

最让我愤怒的是，人们愿意承担法律和监管风险开发这些能追踪用户所有交易的托管方案，却没人愿意冒同样的风险去构建能保障抗审查性和隐私性的产品。

And it really pisses me off that people are, like, willing to take the the legal and the regulatory risks in building these custodial things that they can tie everything going on to individual users, but no one's willing to take that exact same risk to build something that gives people censorship resistance or gives people privacy.

有意思。

Interesting.

是啊。

Yeah.

看。

Look.

说实话，我...我对小米和eCash服务器了解不多。

I I to be honest, I I I don't know as much about, Xiaomi and eCash servers.

我得去多读点相关资料。

I'll have to go and do a bit more reading on that.

但关于闪电网络托管钱包这类话题，你觉得如果人们只存放少量资金，并定期将其转入自己掌控密钥的节点等操作，这样是否可行？

But what on the topic of, Lightning Network custodial wallets and so on, Do you have a thought on whether it's sort of it's okay for people to do it so long as they leave it a small amount there and that they are sweeping it out into their own, say, into their own node where they hold the keys, etcetera?

我是说，人们总会做他们想做的事，但我不喜欢那些不试图为用户保留一定隐私的托管方案。

I mean, are going to do what they're going to do, but like, I don't like custodial solutions that do not try to maintain some degree of privacy for their users.

我的意思是，完全有可能构建注重隐私的托管项目。

And I mean, like there, it is perfectly possible to build custodial projects that do so.

但我看到的从业者都在走捷径，这些做法实际上会破坏用户隐私。

But everybody I see doing these things just keeps taking these shortcuts that frankly destroy their users' privacy.

所以你看，我的问题不在于托管模式本身。

So it's like, you know, my my issue isn't with just them being a custodial thing.

而在于他们构建托管服务的方式及其对用户隐私造成的后果。

It's how they're going about building that custodial thing and the consequences it has for people's privacy.

对。

Right.

好吧。

Okay.

嗯。

Yeah.

老实说，这个领域我确实不太...不太熟悉。

Look, honestly, it's it's an area I'm not as, not as knowledgeable about.

我得去...多研究研究这方面。

I'll have to go and, read a little bit more into that.

好的。

Okay.

还有一个我特别想和你讨论的话题。

And one more topic I was keen to discuss with you.

我知道你对侧链有很多见解。

I know you've got a lot of thoughts on this, is around side chains.

那我们来聊聊侧链在哪些场景下有用、哪些情况下可能合理，以及哪些情况下可能不合理或存在安全隐患。

So let's talk a little bit about where side chains are useful and where they might make sense and scenarios where they maybe they don't make sense or they are insecure.

你能给我们讲讲吗？

Can you tell us a little bit about that?

嗯，其实我对侧链的主要不满在于人们总试图让矿工参与其中。

Well, I mean, most of my problems with side chains are people trying to involve miners with them.

我认为这本质上会损害整个网络。

I think that that inherently damages the network as a whole.

现在让我们看看...我觉得我们可以从Paul Stork推动的驱动链概念开始讲起。

And now let's see how how should I go about I think I think we'll we'll start off with, like, the notion of a a drive chain, like, Paul Stork has been pushing.

坦白说，我认为这种模式主要通过两种方式损害比特币整体。

And frankly, I think that, like, there's two main ways that this kind of damages Bitcoin as a whole.

第一是他不断声称盲合并挖矿机制能神奇地消除所有挖矿中心化的后果。

And the the first is, like, he is constantly claiming that the blind merge mining construct just magically gets rid of all mining centralization, consequences.

而我觉得这完全是胡扯。

And I I think that's frankly bullshit.

这个机制本质上就是：一个非挖矿节点为侧链生成区块，交给矿工并支付大部分费用，让矿工将其打包成有效区块。

Like, what what the the construct is is pretty much you have a node that is not mining itself that produces a block for a side chain and then gives it to a miner and pays the miner most of those fees for the miner to commit to it and make it a valid block.