#671：Instagibbs解读比特币核心版本30的真实内容

你经历了一个货币变得比自由更自由的动态局面。当谈到美联储彻底疯狂时，所有央行都在发疯。所以这一切表现得像安全港。

You've had a dynamic where money has become freer than free. When you talk about a fed just gone nuts, all all the central banks going nuts. So it's all acting like safe haven.

我认为在一个央行争相贬低本国货币的世界里，比特币会胜出。在法定货币的世界里，

I believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin wins. In the world of fiat currencies,

2025年。比特币核心版本30。没错。变得阴郁。非常阴郁。

2025. Bitcoin core version 30. Yep. Drops to Somber. Very somber.

非常阴郁。不过说正经的，我认为就像我们开始录音前讨论的那样，很多讨论显然围绕着这个OP_RETURN辩论——是否应该取消限制，以及这样做的潜在后果。我们可能会涉及这点，但我认为关于比特币核心版本30包含的其他内容讨论得还不够。所以想坐下来和你聊聊比特币核心团队在这个特定版本中的工作。在深入之前，也许我们应该先为普通听众做个比特币核心的高阶概述，基本上解释什么是比特币核心、发布新版本（特别是像30版这样重要的版本）包含哪些内容，然后再深入探讨具体更新。

Very somber. In all seriousness though, I think a lot of discussion as we were just talking before we hit record has revolved around, obviously, this op op return debate whether or not the limit should be lifted or not and the potential consequences of doing that. Maybe we'll touch on that, but I think, there hasn't been enough discussion on everything else that's included in Bitcoin Core version 30. So wanted to sit down with you and talk about what Bitcoin Core has been working on with this particular version. And I think before we do that for the layman out there, maybe we just do, a high level a high level refresher of what Bitcoin Core is, what into what is entailed in, basically, releasing new versions, particularly significant versions like version 30, and then we can jump into the nitty gritty of of what's included.

当然。

Sure.

你想让我来主导这部分？遵命。好的。基本上，比特币核心软件可以说是参考客户端，它在比特币协议中占据主要心智份额和运行份额。它包含许多不同组件——点对点网络层、共识机制、仍有人使用的钱包，还有一大堆其他工具和模块。

You want me to take the lead on this? Yes, sir. Alright. So, basically, there's a Bitcoin Core software is the reference client, so to speak, where it has majority kind of mind share and running share of the Bitcoin protocol itself. It includes a bunch of different parts, peer to peer layer stuff, consensus stuff, a wallet, which people still use, a bunch of other, like, bunch of other tools and pieces in there.

每六个月会进行一次重大版本发布。按照这个节奏，会有一个所谓的'功能冻结'阶段，意思是'停止添加新功能，我们接下来只做漏洞修复'。然后会分支出一个版本，这意味着...

A major release is done every six months. So on a six month cadence, there's a what's called a feature freeze, which is, hey. Stop adding new things. We're going to continue just doing bug fixes until this time. There's a branch off, which means, okay.

现在我们有了一个新的历史分支，它将转化为基于此发布二进制文件的版本，最终经过一系列候选版本（目前正在进行中）后正式发布。此外，你也可以使用这个分叉来处理未来发现的漏洞——当确实出现问题和漏洞时，修复可以直接应用在这些分叉历史上并进行小版本更新。因此，出于各种原因，很可能将来会出现30.1版本，这就是实现方式。这些操作都是按需进行的。就目前而言，如果我理解正确的话，正在基于各种原因（漏洞修复和改进）发布20和29的小版本更新。

Now we have a new fork in the history that will turn into releases that will release binaries based off of this, and then eventually release, right, with series of release candidates, which is happening right now, and then eventually final release. In addition to this, you also have kind of using this forked that if there's future bugs found, if and if and when there are future bugs found and issues, the fixes could be applied directly on these fork dot histories and do minor releases. So someday, I will very highly likely have a 30 dot one for various reasons, and this is how that's done. That's that's done on a per need basis. So right now, if I understand correctly, there's, twenty and twenty nine, minor releases being cut right now for various reasons, bug fixes and improvements.

这种情况可能贯穿整个生命周期。最终在某个时间点，这些主版本或主分支会被标记为生命周期终止。也就是说，我们不再提供支持，不会投入任何维护更新或生成二进制文件等工作，然后它就会逐渐过时。这就是大致的产品生命周期。

So this can happen throughout this life cycle. And then eventually, at some point, these major releases or these major branches get marked as end of life. So saying, basically, we won't support this anymore. We won't do any effort to, like, update maintenance to this, make the and make binaries or anything like that, and then it kinda gets stale. And so that's kind of the the life cycle.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。再退一步讲实现方案的概念。比特币作为共识基础，然后有像Core Knots、Little Bitcoin、BTCD这样的实现方案。它们各自构建的软件虽符合共识规则，但在具体实现上略有不同。

Yeah. And taking even further step back just on the concept of implementations. Right? You have Bitcoin for a consensus and then implementations like core knots, little Bitcoin, BTCD. They sort of have their own implementations that build software that is within consensus, but does things a little differently.

对吗？

Correct?

是的。有些是完全独立的实现方案。比如BTCD就是个很好的例子，它存在已久，是用Go语言编写的，完整实现了共识软件。

Yeah. So some are complete rim for implementation. So BTCD is a good example. That's been around a long time. Has it's it's programmed in Go, Golang, and it has a complete implementation of the consensus software.

所以当你收到以区块链形式呈现的字节流时，它必须得出与Bitcoin Core或其他实现完全相同的答案。重新实现会增加出现差异的可能性，但这些差异有望随时间推移被排查调试和修复。但确保它们严格遵循共识始终是个极具挑战性的问题。甚至在比特币不同版本之间，历史上也出现过因实现细节（比如数据库存储方式）导致未来分叉的情况——在遭遇未预见事件时。虽然这种情况很久没发生了，但在版本更新或未及时更新时仍有可能出现。

So when you get a string of bytes in the form of a blockchain, it needs to come out to the same exact answer as Bitcoin d or any other implementation. That raises the reimplementation raises chance that there is mismatches, but those can hopefully be ironed out and debugged and fixed over time. But there's there's definitely, like, always it's a very demanding problem, making sure they're in lockstep of consensus. And even between Bitcoin versions, there's been historical problems with that, where implementation details, like how the database is stored, causes forks in the future, right, with unforeseen events. It's been a long time since it's happened, but, it's always possible with updates or or not updating too.

是啊。那你觉得

Yeah. And where would you

从比特币核心的发展路径来看，我们现在处于什么阶段？这就像回溯历史。我记得2015年在纽约第一次参加比特币开发者会议时，罗尚诺夫斯基就介绍了隔离见证(SegWit)，后来这个方案确实得到了实施。但过去十二年来我逐渐明白的是，中本聪当年发布的比特币代码库确实有些杂乱无章，这些年我们做了大量工作来梳理代码结构，特别是——或者说不仅仅是——把钱包功能和图形界面从核心代码中分离出来。

say we are, in terms of the path of Bitcoin Core. It's like going back. I remember my first bit devs in New York in 2015. Roshanovsky basically presented on SegWit, and obviously, we had SegWit getting implemented. But I think, one thing over the year over the last twelve years has been made clear to me is that Satoshi, when he launched Bitcoin, it was a bit of a spaghetti code base, and there's been a lot of work to sort of separate things within that code base, particularly or not particularly, but one thing being like the wallet and the GUI.

感觉过去十年的比特币核心开发，主要就是在努力实现代码的合理分离和模块化，这样才能在此基础上构建更复杂的功能，让人们能更容易地在比特币协议层之上开发更复杂的应用。

And if it feels like the last decade of Bitcoin core development specifically has been trying to get the implementation to a point where things are separated appropriately, more modular, and you can begin to do things that that make it more complex, make it easier to build more complex applications on top of the Bitcoin protocol layer.

确实如此。历史性的功能拆分是当前最重要的进展之一，把这些功能模块放入独立的容器以便单独测试。就像查理坦一直在推进的LipiClaim内核工作——将共识机制完全从代码库中分离出来，暴露API接口，这样无论是用于替代实现方案还是开发工具都能复用。这些工作虽然不够光鲜亮丽，但需要仔细权衡成本效益。

Yeah. It was definitely that's one of the major things happening is historically splitting out these functionalities, getting them into their own containers that can be tested separately. So focusing on, like, the charlatan, he's been working on he's been continuing carrying this torch on the LipiClaim kernel. So being able to separate the consensus parts out of the code base completely exposes an API so people can use reuse this either in in an alternative implementation or just for tooling. It's not exactly you know, a lot of this work is not glamorous in that there's cost benefits to be weighed.

重构这些关键代码部分（主要是共识机制而非钱包模块）的代价在于：当你修改代码实现模块化时，必须确保不改变原有行为特征——这非常困难。就像你说的，中本聪最初把所有功能（钱包、共识机制、点对点网络）都混在main.cpp这个巨型文件里，而我们这些年一直在小心翼翼地进行解耦工作，这个过程至今仍在继续。

The cost is here is that when you're refactoring these very critical parts of the code base, most of consensus, not wallet. I mean, wallet's important in its own way, but, the consensus parts, making sure that you're when you're changing this code to make it modular, you're not also changing the behavior, which is very difficult. So as you said, Satoshi started with main dot c p p, one big file that has wallet, consensus, peer to peer. It just has everything just jumbled in it. And it's been a long process of carefully teasing these pieces out, which is continuing today.

另一个重大项目是进程间通信接口(IPC)，这个方案最终会把功能拆分到不同的二进制文件。比如让比特币节点和钱包通过接口通信，或者将来可能由独立二进制文件专门处理点对点网络功能等。不过这些都还在未来路线图规划中。

One big project is the inter process communication interface. So there's this project basically split up to different binaries. So you can have your Bitcoin node communicate with your Bitcoin wall over interface, different binaries, or in the future, you could have the peer to peer parts handled handled only by a separate binary or different ideas like that. But this is, future roadmap stuff.

没错。说到当前路线图，除了最受关注的OP_RETURN升级（这显然是核心版本30最热门的功能），我正在看笔记，看起来...

Yeah. Well, sticking on current roadmap stuff like beyond op return, which is obviously the most talked about feature in core version 30. I'm looking at my notes now. It looks

就像是的。

like Yep.

将移除检查点支持并弃用检查点功能，包括数据载体大小、行为及弃用计划的变更，支持每笔交易多个操作码返回输出，点对点中继，心理调整，速率限制，拒绝服务保护，代码重构，内部基础设施清理。所以远不止‘是的’这么简单。操作码返回也要调整。对。我们先讨论检查点，因为我认为...

There's gonna be removal of checkpoint support and depreciation of checkpoints, changes the data carrier size, behavior, and deprecation plans, support for multiple op return outputs per transaction, p to p relay, mental adjustments, rate limiting, and denial services protections, refactoring, internal cleanup infrastructure. So there's much beyond Yep. Up return up return as well. Yeah. Let's start on checkpoints because I think that Right.

一直以来争议不大，但根据交谈对象不同，人们对检查点的好坏有非常具体的看法。移除它们究竟是好事还是坏事？

Has been, not very controversial, but I think people have very, depending on who you talk to, very specific views on checkpoints for the good or the bad. Is removing them good or bad?

没错。从历史上看，检查点本质上是一种反拒绝服务机制。早期如果你启动节点时没有这些检查点——比如回溯几个版本甚至十个版本前——可能有对等节点连接后向你传输大量伪造数据，对方可能只用一台ASIC矿机就能廉价制造这些数据。他们会构建一个很长的区块头链，但难度值极低，在你刚接入网络时就拦截并灌输这些区块头。

Yeah. So checkpoints historically are are do not anti denial service mechanism. So back in the day, if you spun up a node and you didn't have these checkpoints, like, let's say, a few versions back, maybe 10 versions back, a peer could connect to you and then hand you a bunch of data that they cheaply made using maybe they have, like, one ASIC. Right? Like, one miner, and they make a long block header chain, a very weak difficulty, and they intercept you right when you're getting connected to the network and just feed you these headers.

这些区块头按当时架构会直接写入磁盘，每个80字节。如果持续攻击，本质上就是让你反复往磁盘写入80字节数据。这就是所谓的‘区块头磁盘攻击’。检查点机制相当于声明：在此节点之前，我们不会接受区块链历史中的任何分叉。

These headers, based on the current architecture at the time, are just written to disk, and so these are 80 bytes each. And so if you do enough, you essentially just set writing 80 bit bytes of data over and over and over to disk. And this is called, you know, a header disco attack. These checkpoints are basically saying, okay. Up until this point, we're not going to accept any forks in the blockchain history.

必须达到这个检查点后才会继续后续验证。他们选择的这个节点位置意味着——大概需要网络10%的算力，诸如此类，耗时极长才能伪造出这么长的区块头链。因此大大增加了攻击难度。这就是最初的动机，因为这确实是个真实存在的攻击手段。

It must get to this point, and then it continues doing validation after that. This this point that they picked is basically like, you know, it's oh, it would take 10% of the network's mining power, yada yada, long time to make a header chain this long. Therefore, it makes the attack that much harder. That that was, like, the original motivation because it was a real attack.

如果我理解有误请指正，但检查点的验证或确定方式是不是需要若干开发者共同签署确认？就像‘这是正确的检查点’这样。对吧？

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there aren't the way the checkpoints are sort of, like, verified or decide upon that you have, like, a number of developers that basically just sign, like, this is the right checkpoint. This is the right Yeah.

数据需要精确添加一个新的检查点。添加一个新的检查点。你需要做的是，让我们看看。关于检查点，我已经有一段时间没考虑这个问题了，但你要确保重组不会超过那个点。所以它必须非常深入。

Data to be Add a new check exactly. Add a new checkpoint. All you need to do well, let's see. For check I haven't thought about this in a while, but you want to make sure that reorg will not happen beyond that point. So it has to be very deep.

对吧？这与另一个名为'假设有效'的特性有本质区别。对于这个特性，你必须声明我们永远不会分叉它。因此在哲学层面上论证30万区块、40万区块是否正确是相当耗费精力的。因为你实际上是在说，我不会偏离这段历史。

Right? It's it's qualitatively different than another feature called assume valid. So this one, you have to say that we will never fork this one out. And so it's kind of labor intensive to, like, philosophically argue that is 300,000 blocks correct, 400,000, things like that. And it's because you really are saying, like, I will not diverge from this history.

但表面上，你可以提交一个GitHub拉取请求。有人说我要更新到这个高度，比如50万之类的。这是哈希值，所有人都会坐在那里确认，是的，从那以后已经有50万个区块叠加在上面，而且这个哈希匹配。这就是验证过程。

But, yes, ostensibly, get in a you know, get into a GitHub pull request. Somebody says, I'm updating it to this height. So 500,000 or something like that. This is the hash, and everyone sits there and makes sure that, yeah, there's been 500,000 blocks on top of it since then, and this hash matches. That would be a verification.

是啊。那被替换的是什么呢？是头文件区域之类的吗？

Yeah. And how's that what's what's being replaced? There's a headers precinct or something like that.

没错。这个想法由来已久。多年来我们都在思考：当我们首次与网络同步时，可以有个大致概念，比如应该预期多少工作量证明。你连接网络时说，我预期这么多x——我甚至说不出具体哈希值。

Exactly. So there's this long this idea. This is years and years of an idea where you could say, okay. What if we have a when we're first when we're freshly syncing with the network, you just have a broad idea of, like, how many how how much proof of work you should be expecting. So you connect to network and say, I'm expecting, you know, this many x I can't even say the hashes or whatever.

对吧？然后你会收到这个头文件链。但不是直接写入磁盘，而是完整遍历整个链，直到达到你内部设定的最小工作量证明要求。达到后你说：好的，看起来没问题。

Right? And then you get this you get fed this header chain. But instead of committing to disk, you just walk the whole chain the whole way until you hit that minimum proof of work requirement that you've internally, internalized. Once you hit it, you say, okay. That looks good.

我已经走了这么远，期间内存中一次只存储一个头文件。现在既然已经完成，我要再反向操作一次。其实就是同步两次：第一次同步头文件验证磁盘不会被塞满，第二次同步才真正写入磁盘。这套方法加上大量额外测试工作，让我们能完全从代码库中移除检查点。

I've gotten all this way, and I've only stored one header at a time in memory. Now that I've gotten this way, I'm gonna do it backwards again. You just sync it twice. So you sync the headers once to verify that your disk is not going to be filled, and then you sync again to actually write to disk. And this along with a bunch of extra testing work allows you to remove checkpoints entirely from the code base.

这在时间上是否存在IBD的权衡？

Does that have any IBD trade offs in terms of time?

是的。我认为在现有实现中，如果你的网络连接不稳定——我测试时就遇到过这种情况，当时我通过反复断开网络连接进行测试。在辖区范围内，在你完成第一次同步之前，如果连接中断，比如节点因任何原因掉线，就必须重新开始。这种情况本不该发生。自那次测试后我再没见过类似问题，但这确实是一个限制条件。

Yeah. I think with the current implementation, if you have a floppy Internet connection, which I had once when I was testing, I was testing by flapping the Internet connection. During the precinct, before you've finished the first pass, if it if it gets interrupted, like your peer drops for whatever reason, it has to restart. So that shouldn't happen. I haven't seen that since, since I was testing it, but that's one constraint there.

所以你需要能够一次性下载头部链。完成后就能进入历史数据同步阶段。虽然存在优化空间，但我觉得这是工程复杂度权衡的问题，似乎不值得投入。

So you need to be able to download the header chain once. As soon as that's done, you do goes like historical. And there are ways of improving this, but I think it's one of those engineering complexity trade off things, which doesn't seem worth it.

嘿，伙计们？TFTC这期节目由我们的好朋友BitKey赞助。BitKey让比特币使用简单且不易丢失。这款硬件钱包原生支持2/3多签方案：硬件钱包存一个密钥，移动设备存一个，Block云端还会替你保管一个。

Sup, freaks? This rip at TFTC was brought to you by our good friends at BitKey. BitKey makes Bitcoin easy to use and hard to lose. It is a hardware wallet that natively embeds into a two or three multisig. You have one key on the hardware wallet, one key on your mobile device, and Block stores a key in the cloud for you.

这款革命性硬件设备适合你那些长期把比特币放在交易所的朋友、家人或你自己——他们迟迟不敢迈出自托管第一步，担心设置公私钥对、保管助记词、设置PIN码和密码短语太复杂。BitKey再次强调：使用简单，不易丢失。这是从零到自托管最轻松的第一步。如果你有朋友家人还在用交易所...

This is an incredible hardware device for your friends and family or maybe yourself who have Bitcoin on exchanges and have for a long time, but haven't taken the step to self custody because they're worried about the complications of setting up a private public key pair, securing that seed phrase, setting up a PIN, setting up a passphrase. Again, BitKey makes it easy to use, hard to lose. It's the easiest zero to one step, your first step to self custody. If you have friends and family on the exchanges who haven't moved it

快让他们

off, tell them to pick

买个BitKey。访问bitkey.world，结账时使用优惠码TFTC20可享8折优惠。网址BitKey.world，代码TFTC20。嘿，伙计们？

up a BitKey. Go to bitkey.world. Use the key t f TC20 at checkout for 20% off your order. That's BitKey dot world, code t f TC20. Sup, freaks?

本节目由我们的好朋友Obscura赞助播出。如果您长期收听我们的节目，就会知道我们非常重视隐私保护，尤其是在您浏览网页时。使用VPN非常重要，而Obscura正是我们选择的VPN。因为它是由比特币爱好者为比特币爱好者打造的VPN，是首个既不会记录您的活动又能突破网络审查的VPN。

This was brought to you by our good friends at Obscura. If you've been listening to the show long enough, you know we care deeply about privacy, particularly as you peruse the web. It is important to be using a VPN, and Obscura is our VPN of choice. That is because it is a VPN built by a Bitcoiner for Bitcoiners. It is the first VPN that can't log your activity and outsmarts Internet censorship.

Obscura VPN即使在限制最严格的WiFi网络中也能正常工作，而其他VPN根本无法连接。Obscura在美国和全球各地都设有服务器，无论您身在何处都能保持网络畅通无阻。自推出以来我一直在使用它，速度方面没有任何问题，可以毫无障碍地观看YouTube TV。

Obscura VPN works even in the most restrictive WiFi networks where other VPNs simply fail to connect. With server locations across America and the globe, Obscura keeps your Internet access unrestricted wherever you are. I've been using it since it launched. I see no problems with speed. I can get on YouTube TV without any problems.

它就是这么好用。他们无法记录日志。您可以用比特币支付。访问obscura.net，使用优惠码TFTC25即可享受年费订阅25%的折扣。

It simply works. They can't log. You can pay in Bitcoin. Go to obscura.net. Use the code TFTC25 for 25% off in annual subscription.

他们的年费套餐已经很划算了，而使用TFTC25优惠码还能再省25%。快去看看吧。Obscura.net，使用优惠码TFTC25。

It's already a good deal, their annual deal. The TFTC 25 code gets you 25% more off. Go check it out. Obscura.net. Use the code TFTC 25.

那么我想再退一步问，从整体上说，您认为这次重大版本更新在节点软件本身的效率提升方面有多深远的影响？

And so I I guess, again, stepping back, broadly speaking, how profound would you say that this major version releases in terms of improvement of the node software itself from an efficiency standpoint?

您是指初始区块下载(IBD)还是泛指这个方面？

So are you talking about initial block download or just this?

就是IBD。您甚至可以从点对点网络层面来谈，或者说交易能更快地在点对点网络中传播处理。

IBD. You can even talk like peer to peer level, as we say, or transactions going to be, matriculated through the the peer to peer network faster.

好的。关于检查点方面，这根本不会提高效率。那只是一个理念上的改变，旨在明确核心开发者并不负责你的链。但从一致性角度来看，Lawrence已经做了大量工作，特别是在低端硬件初始区块下载方面。我没有特别关注这部分，但我知道正在进行中。

Sure. So on the the checkpoints front front, that doesn't improve efficiency at all. That's just a philosophical change to make it clear that the core devs are not in charge of what your chain is. But from a conformance perspective, there's been a bunch of work done by Lawrence who has focused on, especially on the lower end of hardware for initial block download. I haven't paid very close attention to that, but I know it's happening.

另一种交易类型是网络对等节点的健壮性。这方面有很多工作，包括所谓的'交易孤儿院'和包裹中继。我先说孤儿院部分：当你首次启动节点且内存池为空时，人们会开始告诉你那些在内存池中有依赖但你不具备的交易。例如收到一个依赖第一代交易的第二代交易。在3030版本之前，这个过程不太稳定，可能被恶意或故障的直接对等节点中断。3030版本对此有重大改进。

The other kind of transaction, robustness, right, for the peer to peer network, there's been a bunch of work, both on there's this thing called the transaction orphanage and also, package relay. So I'll start with the orphanage part where if you turn your note on for the first time and your mempool is empty, people will start telling you about transactions which are have dependencies in the mempool itself, but you don't have them. So for example, you get a second generation transaction that depends on a first. Right now, prior to .3030.o, this process is a little flaky and can be interrupted by direct peers who are either malicious or malfunctioning. So 30.30.0 has a significant improvement to that.

这项工作由Gloria、Peter等人牵头，旨在使其能抵御单个甚至多个对等节点的恶意行为。只要有一个诚实对等节点，就能让这类交易在内存池中完成同步。

It was spearheaded by Gloria, Peter, and others, to make this robust to single peers being malicious or even end peers being malicious. So as long as you have one honest peer, you can make this kind of transaction catch up in the mempool.

这是针对'子为父付费'和RBF的吗？还是...

Is this for, like, child pays for parent and RBF only? Or

不，不仅如此。它原本是针对单父单子包裹中继项目的，这个项目我认为是在28版本全面部署的。但现有实现有个弱点：如果单个对等节点连接你，他们可以向你发送垃圾信息从而清空这个缓存。

No. Not only. So this it is it was aimed at it. So it was aimed at the kind of one parent, one child package relay project, which was deployed in full on, I think, twenty eight dot o. But the existing implementation had this weakness where if a single peer connects to you, they can throw garbage at you and basically empty out this this cache.

对吧？基本上，内存池中的关联方式会被单个对等节点破坏。而新的'孤儿院'实现——即寻找父交易——即使有n-1个连接是攻击者也能保持健壮。基本上，一个诚实对等节点可以占位并执行诚实的CPFP和包裹中继尝试，至少每次一个。

Right? So, basically, it's the way of connecting the dots in your mempool, basically get disrupted by a single peer. And the new, implementation of what's called the orphanage, finding your parent, This is robust even if you have n minus one connections being attackers. So, basically, the one honest peer can take up a slot and make honest CPFPs and, like, package relay attempts, like, at least one at a time.

嗯...我试着想象这个场景。假设默认有8个对等节点，其中7个是恶意的。互联网就是这样...

So Yeah. I'm trying to visualize that. Yeah. So you have a let's say out of the out of the box eight peers, seven of them are malicious. Internet is just

所以他们给你喂的是孤儿垃圾数据，就是那些他们根本不打算修复的东西。对吧？说白了，这些都是不花他们一分钱的东西。他们只是丢些数据给你看看保管。但本质上，以前是一个全局大桶，现在变成了类似多个全局桶的架构。

So they're they're feeding you orphan garbage, so stuff they don't intend to ever fix. Right? Say it's stuff really, it's just stuff that doesn't cost them anything. They're just handing you data to look at and hold. But, basically, instead of one big global bucket, which it was before, there's, like, a global bucket.

所以一个节点可以直接进去替换桶里的内容。你会有终端桶，这些终端桶可以共享。它采用某种乐观路径策略，比如乐观假设整个空间会被单一节点使用。但在高负载或节点作恶的情况下，我们至少为每个节点设置了保护槽位，本质上确保经济有效的交易能够传播。

So one peer could just go in and switch out the bucket's contents. You have end buckets. And these end buckets can be shared. It uses some optimistic pathing, like optimistic assumptions about using the whole space by one peer. But under kind of these loads where either things are very busy or the peer is being malicious, then we protect at least we we have a protections slots for each peer essentially to make sure that economically valid transactions are propagated.

嗯。我在想节点软件要怎么判断某个节点提供给你的数据确实是正确的数据？

Yeah. I'm just trying to think how would, how does the node software determine that the one peer providing you good data is actually the right data?

这不是评分机制。我记得它只是规定——单个交易包最大容量可能是101千虚拟字节左右。系统会为每个节点预留这么多空间。所以节点是否恶意不影响这个数值，这只是你为节点分配的固定额度。

So it's not scoring or anything like that. It's just saying I think the if I remember right, it's saying a maximum transaction package could be, like, this big, like a 101 kilovirtabytes. It says, I'll protect that much per peer. So whether or not the peer's malicious or not doesn't affect this number. It's just something you allocate for that peer.

所以它不会记录历史表现来评估谁提供了有用数据，就是直接分配额度。

So it doesn't it doesn't take, like, historical note of who's giving you useful things. It just allocates that.

确实很合理。有意思的是，就在这周比特币创历史新高时，全球多数地方都盯着它那2.5万亿美元市值。

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. It's funny because, many people, I mean, as Bitcoin were hitting, we hit all time highs earlier this week. We're at a $2,500,000,000,000 market cap in most of the world. It's focused on Bitcoin.

人们只把它当作数字资本商品——虽然确实如此。但研究这类政策优化细节时，我深刻意识到比特币协议的极端复杂性。要知道，现在数百万甚至数十亿美元资金涌入这个资产，而很多人完全不知道你们正在做的这类优化。

Just use it as this in their digital capital good, which it certainly is. But I think getting into nitty gritty of, policies like this or not even policies, but sort of optimizations like this really reminds me at least of the the the Bitcoin protocol is extremely complex. And Yeah. From here, a lot of people are putting under the millions, billions of dollars even into this asset or completely unaware of the sort of optimizations that you guys are working on.

这类事情不需要与其他团队协调。所以没有新增的点对点消息类型，也没有新的格式。这只是利用已存在多年的机制进行扩展，这有助于加快进度，但也限制了其功能范围。更大的改动可能需要更高层面的变更，但那就需要与其他项目进行更多协调。

And and these kind of things don't require coordination with other groups. So there's no new, like, peer to peer messages. No no new format here. So this is just piggybacking up things which have existed for many years, which helps helps with velocity for moving forward with things, but also limits what it can possibly do. Larger changes might require more changes, like, from a higher level, but then that requires more coordination with other projects Yeah.

比如BCD就是个例子。

Like BCD as an example.

说到这个，这种协调机制是随时间改善还是逐渐废弃？协调难度是在增加吗？或者说...

And on that note, like, how how is that coordination improving or deprecating over time? Is it getting harder to coordinate? Or

就像我说的，我认为大多数事务都在既定框架内运作。在这个框架下运作确实提高了效率。但如今除了Bitcoin Core，几乎没有从头开始实现比特币协议的常用版本。比如Bitcoin knots虽然是Core的分支，但每个版本基本都包含所有相同功能，只是额外添加了些东西。

Well, like I said, I think most things are happening within within the colored lines. So in the lines for coloring, which it just improves velocity. But, yeah, like, there are no commonly used from scratch implementations of Bitcoin today that are not Bitcoin Core. Right? So you have Bitcoin knots, which is a fork in Bitcoin Core, but it has per version that has all the same features pretty much with extra things added on.

这不需要协调。但以BTCD为例，据我所知它在某些功能上落后几个版本，比如没有实现通过见证交易ID（WTX ID）传播交易的机制。这会影响到Bitcoin Core内部的决策，比如如何为对等节点节省带宽。我们必须清楚网络其他节点的运行情况，这也会影响内部决策。

So that doesn't take coordination. But, for example, BTCD is a few versions behind on things like, as far as I know, they don't implement the way of sharing transactions to the network using witness transaction ID, so WTX ID gossip. So this can impact decisions that Bitcoin Core makes internally, how we try to save bandwidth for our peers. We have to be cognizant of what other nodes on the network, what are they doing, and that that can affect things internally as well.

确实，以BTCD为例，几年前就发生过这种情况——当时Barack执行了那个1000个多重签名中的999个签名案例。这导致BTCD和部分闪电网络节点暂时脱网。嗯。

Well, yeah, I mean, sticking on BTCD, there was an example that a couple years ago now at this point when Barack did that nine ninety nine of 1,000 multisig Yeah. That knocked that knocked BTCD off of network and some lightning nodes for a period of time. Mhmm.

是的。所以...

Yeah. So

那是我的平板电脑，对吧？

That was an That's my tablet. Right?

是的。还有一些涉及模糊测试的工作。我不记得是谁做的模糊测试，但脚本解释器在执行某个名为查找和删除的功能时有细微差异。这是旧脚本代码库中一个非常晦涩的功能，就像是比特币中本聪时代的脚本，我们在隔离见证或Taproot中已经不再使用了。

Yeah. And there's been other ones with so some fuzzing work. I can't remember who did the fuzzing, but the slight difference in how the script interpreter executed a certain thing called find and delete. It's a very obscure function in the old script code base. Like, this is like like Bitcoin, Satoshi era scripting that we don't use anymore in SegWit or Taproot.

但是，这些细微差异可能导致潜在的分叉机会。如果我没记错的话，这甚至发生在标准交易中。看，某些恶意人士本可以让BTCD分叉，但他们没有这么做。所以这是好事。这确实很难。

But, like, these minor differences can result in possible forking opportunities. And if I remember right, that was even with transactions that were standard. See, someone someone who's malicious could have forked up BTCD, but didn't. So that was good. It's it's it's hard.

非常困难。

Very hard.

是的。既然你提到脚本，版本30中有什么涉及脚本的内容吗？

Yeah. I mean, since you mentioned scripting, is there anything in version 30 that involves scripting?

没有。据我所知...我不认为脚本解释器是一个令人望而生畏的领域，除非必要否则不愿轻易改动。在常规版本发布中，几乎没有任何理由去碰它。我想唯一可能涉及比特币核心接口的部分也不会触及它。我上次修改它还是几个版本之前的事。

No. So the last I I don't think script the the script interpreter is one big kind of scary area that's you're hesitant to touch unless you really need to. And during normal releases, there's almost no reason to touch it. I would say the only thing that might touch the Bitcoin kernel with interface stuff, but I think not even then. The last time I touched it was a couple releases ago.

所以锚点更新是个非常小的改动，甚至没有改变原有定义。只是基本上表示这不再是一个升级路径了，我们会继续使用它。因此总的来说，除非我们要实现共识变更，否则不会改动脚本。

So the pay the anchor update, that's a very minor change. That doesn't even doesn't even change the definition of what's happening. It's just, like, minor, basically saying this is not an upgrade path anymore. Let let we'll use it. So I would say, in general, we don't do scripting unless there's a consensus change we're trying to affect.

我的研究，我记得读到过关于So 30中的临时锚点的内容，是不是

My research, I I thought I read something about ephemeral anchors with So 30. Is that

好的。不。所以这需要回顾一下历史。股骨锚点其实是两个概念，对吧？

a Okay. No. So that would be so go through the history. So the femoral anchors is kind of two concepts. Right?

首先是支付锚点部分，这是脚本部分，在20.28版本。然后是股骨粉尘部分，那是在29版本。这些已经发布大约一两个周期了。显然，我们在38版本部署的这个包中继缓冲会有所帮助，但这些关键部分已经部署了。

There's the pay to anchor part, which is the script. That was 20 dot 28. And then femoral dust was the other part, and that was in 29. So those have been out for about one, two release cycles. Obviously, this this package relay buff that we're deploying in thirty eight o is going to help, but those key parts were already deployed.

已经就位。好的。这正是我记下的。

In place. Alright. That's what I wrote.

而临时粉尘对脚本没有任何影响。它只是一条规则，基本上是说如果你花费它，你可以有一个粉尘输出。这很简单。

And ephemeral and ephemeral dust doesn't affect scripting whatsoever. It's just it's just a rule that basically says you're allowed to have one dust output if you spend it. It's pretty simple.

你对30版本最期待的是什么？

What are you most excited about in version 30?

是的。很多内容其实都是防止网络崩溃之类的。我觉得很多，如果我没有直接回答问题的话，但我觉得很多工作是在安全层面完成的。Brink模糊测试团队做了一些出色的工作，比如Nicholas和Marco De Leon，不是Marco Falke。

Yeah. A lot of this stuff is kind of just, like, not letting the network fall apart kind of stuff. I I think a lot of the, if I'm not exactly answering the question, but I think a lot of the work has been done at the security level. Some excellent work with the the Brink fuzzing team. So, like, Nicholas and Marco De Leon, not Marco Falke.

他们团队在模糊测试基础设施方面做得非常出色。因此，我认为我们现在的保障比前几年高得多，包括回顾几个版本之前的情况。如果需要，我可以进一步详细说明。

They've and and team have been doing great work with the fuzzing infrastructure. So I feel like the assurances we have are much higher than prior years, including just going back a couple versions. I I can go more into that if you'd like.

嗯，我希望你能详细讲讲，比如如何防止网络崩溃。那个...

Well, I'd like you to go into more, like, not letting the network fall apart. What what That's

这是其中一部分，对吧？我可以深入谈谈这个。

part of it. Right? I I can get into this.

好的。

Yeah.

从历史上看，比特币版本发布的一个问题是难以对所有环节进行稳健的端到端测试。因为存在多个层级——比如网络协议栈需要处理随机的TCP/IP数据、与节点通信、接收节点数据，以及根据各种上下文处理数据路径。

So historically, one problem with Bitcoin releases is that it's hard to test everything end to end in a robust fashion where you have, you know, you have a bunch of layers. So you have a networking stack where you where you're taking in random TCP IP data. You're talking to peers. You're receiving data from peers. You're processing data in, like, paths that depend on a bunch of context.

因此很难枚举所有可能的路径，也难以进行稳健的测试。但基本上，尼古拉斯和其他几位开发者一直在构建模糊测试框架，通过向二进制文件输入随机但智能的数据，观察行为是否符合预期。最基本的假设是：任何符合共识的消息都不应导致崩溃。这看似简单，但要追踪所有代码路径确保不崩溃并非易事。

So it's hard to enumerate all the possible paths, and it's hard to do this in a test that's in a robust way. But, basically, Nicholas and a few others have been working on a buzz harness, which is, like, putting random intelligent but random data and inputting it directly into the binary and seeing if that if the, behavior follows the what we assume assume to happen. So basic ones is we assume that any message that appear consensus won't make us crash. That's kind of obvious. But trace making it, try to trace all the different code paths to make sure it doesn't crash is, like, a nontrivial thing.

另一种方法是进行不变性检查，例如：假设节点A发送点对点消息，绝不应导致我们与节点B断开连接。攻击者不应能通过连接我来切断我与诚实节点的连接。可以建立这样的测试框架，每秒进行数百次不同消息模式的迭代测试（包括区块头、交易广播、ping/pong等），无论数据是否有效，都要确保与节点B的连接保持在线。通过这种方式已经发现了一些历史性问题，我认为这对未来处理点对点变更或策略调整会非常有帮助。

The other thing you can do is do kind of this we call it invariance checks, which are things like any message that this one peer, so let's say peer a, peer a sends us a peer to peer message. It should never cause us to disconnect peer b. So an attacker shouldn't be able to connect to me and make me disconnect with the honest peer. And so you can essentially set up a harness like that, do a few 100 iterations per second of different message patterns, including block headers, transaction announcements, pings, pongs, whatever, basically spewing stuff valid or not at the node and making sure that this connection this connection with peer b stays stays online. And so there's been a number of, like, historical kind of catches with this, and I think it'll be very nice to have going forward, especially with peer to peer changes or policy changes too.

这是专门用来防止日蚀攻击之类的吗？

Is that specifically to stop something like an eclipse attack?

是的。以那个例子来说，不变性检查中'不要让我与诚实恐惧断开连接'的意思就是如此。我想了解所有诚实区块甚至交易。关于这个孤立更新或我们如何处理这些孤立交易，有个模糊测试框架本质上就是这么说的。如果诚实节点始终保持在限制范围内，那么其他节点永远无法驱逐诚实节点的数据。

Yeah. So that that example, the the invariance check of don't make me disconnect with my honest fear would be, yes. Like, I want to hear about all blocks that are honest or even transactions too. So one interesting with this orphanage update or how we're holding on to these orphan transactions, there's a fuzz harness that said is essentially this. You know, if if the honest peer is staying within their limits, then another peer should never be able to evict the honest peer's things.

对吧？你基本上可以做完全相同的测试。向它喷射大量数据，确保诚实节点的数据永远不会被驱逐。这样你获得的保障级别就会高得多。我可以整天讨论这个，不过我会照顾你的。

Right? And you could basically have the same exact thing. Spews a bunch of data at it and make sure that nothing is ever evicted from this honest peer. And so the level of assurance you get gets much higher, I think. I can go on all day about this, but, you know, I'll take care of you.

更重要的是，随着价格上涨，有很多新人加入比特币。我们来深入探讨日蚀攻击这个概念，以确保你运行比特币节点时开放了连接槽位，能接收和转发交易及其他数据。日蚀攻击的概念是，如果恶意节点占用了所有连接槽位，就能开始向你提供虚假数据，确保你无法与最长链达成共识。

More because there's a bunch of there there's definitely with the price going up, a bunch of people are new to Bitcoin, but let's dig into this concept of an eclipse attack to try to prevent this to make sure you you have a Bitcoin node, you have slots open that peers connect to so that you can receive and, pass on transactions and other other data. But the concept of an eclipse attack is if you have malicious ears that take up all of the slots interacting with your node, can begin feeding you bad data and basically ensure that you're not, in consensus with the longest chain.

比特币依赖于一个诚实节点的假设。只要有一个你连接或连接你的节点是诚实的，你就能同步到最佳区块链——也就是最重的链。日蚀攻击就是攻击者利用网络手段，试图欺骗你放弃保持与诚实节点的连接。比如发送消息导致你断开与诚实节点的连接。

Bit Bitcoin relies on the one honest peer assumption. So as long as one peer that you've reached out to or has reached to you is honest, then you can stay caught up on the best chain of blocks, the the heaviest chain of blocks. And then the Eclipse attack is a way of trying it's an attacker using kind of arbitrary network means trying to trick you into not keeping on to a good person or letting them go or not letting them in at all. And so one way of doing that would be, like, send a message that causes you to disconnect a good person. Right?

正是如此。

So Exactly.

为什么防范这类攻击很重要？攻击者的意图到底是什么？

Why is it important to protect against these attacks? Like, how would Well What what what would what is the intent of Yeah.

某人 所以有

Somebody So there's

一种日蚀攻击？

an eclipse attack?

所以攻击者想阻止你的主要原因有两个：首先，攻击者是另一个矿工，而你也作为矿工在挖矿区块时，他们想将你从网络中隔离，让你独自运作。你以为自己在构建最长链，实际上却落后于整个网络。比如你原本占全网30%算力，若能隔离掉1%的小矿池，你的份额就会逐渐提升至35%、40%。明白吗？

So there's two two reasons why you wouldn't want why an attacker would well, two major reasons why an attacker would want to stop you. Your attacker is another miner, and you're a miner. So you're mining blocks, and they wanna partition you from the network, get you alone So you think you're doing good work and making the longest chain, but in reality, you're falling behind the rest of the network. So, you know, if you're if you're 30% of the network, if you can partition off one percent pools off the network, suddenly your 30% becomes 35%, 40% over time. Right?

这对大矿工极为有利，因为他们能借此扩大优势。另一种情况是，如果你运行的是闪电网络节点或任何带有瞭望塔功能的节点——比如你持有预签名的保险库交易，需要监控异常情况（如盗窃发生）。闪电网络同理：当交易对手试图用旧链状态欺诈你时，

And this benefits you greatly because larger miners tend to fare better because they're just getting ahead. The other would be, if you're not a miner, would be something like you run a lightning node or a node that has a watchtower of any sort. So you have, like, presigned vault transactions, and you want to watch when things are happening, right, if a theft is occurring. Lightning is the same idea. A Lightning party counterparty is trying to defraud you going with an old state on chain.

你必须以最快速度获取最新区块信息。如果信息被完全阻断，你的资金就会在不知不觉中流失。所以

You wanna hear about the newest blocks as fast as possible, and the fastest way to do that well, if you're being if it's being stopped entirely, then you just never hear about it when your money goes out the window. So

对，特别是闪电网络里那个...叫什么来着？

Yeah. On Lightning specifically with the what's it called?

HTLCs（哈希时间锁合约）。

HTLCs.

嗯，HTLCs（哈希时间锁定合约），但如果你的通道被攻击剪辑，而你不知道你的通道对手方在你通道伙伴无响应时拥有特定交易。交易。是的。

Well, the HTLCs, but if you get a clips attacked and you don't know that your channel counterparty has the specific transaction once your channel partner is not responding. Transaction. Yeah.

是的。所以他们可能很久以前就获得了一个旧版本的链，而你却从未听说过。你坐在那里等待，心想：这很奇怪。我没有收到区块，但大多数情况应该还好。

Yeah. So they could have gotten a chain with an old version long ago, and you just never heard about it. You're sitting there waiting. You're saying, that's weird. I'm not getting blocks, but most things must be okay.

你知道，也许矿工速度慢了。对吧？而实际上，对方已经卷走你的钱跑路了。

You know, maybe miners are slow. Right? And then on the other side, they actually have taken your money and run.

是的。这可能需要两周时间，或者两周。视情况而定。

Yeah. And that takes it's two weeks for that or two weeks. Depends.

是的。具体到闪电网络，这取决于节点运营者和通道伙伴。你可以说，我对你半天或一天后卷款跑路的情况感到放心等待。这完全取决于你。这就是反应式安全模型。

Yeah. So with Lightning specifically, that's up to the node operator, and channel partner. So you can say, I I feel comfortable waiting with you running off with my money after half a day or one day. That's really up to you. And that's the reactive security model.

基本上，为了更好的安全性，你应该把这个时间调得很长。再谈谈那个导致崩溃的LND漏洞，这就是为什么你可能需要更长的延迟——不仅因为担心日蚀攻击，还担心软件包漏洞、网络中断等各种原因。你会希望这些时间锁设置得更长。

Basically, it's for better security, you should turn turn that dial way up. So talking again about that LND exploit crashing, Like, that's one example why you might want a longer delay because not only are you worried about Eclipse attacks, but you're worried about bugs and packages and your Internet, you know, getting cut off. And there's all sorts of reasons that you'd want to have these time locks be longer.

但既然你提到了漏洞，因为这与v30版本的漏洞有关。有任何补丁正在修复吗？

But since you mentioned the bugs, what because it pertains to bugs and v 30. Would any being patched?

当然。如果你访问bitcoincore.org，我现在就打开。让我们看看。我可能会说错话。我会找到它的。

Surely. So if you go to bitcoincore.org, I'm pulling up right now. There's the let's see. I'll put my foot in my mouth here. I'll find it.

版本发布。安全开发安全公告。这里是追踪所有公开漏洞的地方。举例来说，最新一个是由于地址垃圾邮件导致的远程崩溃。它会详细告诉你漏洞的严重程度评级等信息。

Releases. Security development security advisories. This is the place to track all the publicly known vulnerabilities. And so, for example, the latest one was a remote crash due to address spam. And there, it'll give you all the details of who you know, what severity it's ranked.

分为低、中、高三个等级，这基本是根据漏洞利用难度和危害程度进行的粗略分级。最严重的情况可能导致链分裂，对吧？让人们分叉并发生双花攻击。次严重的情况可能是发送一条消息导致所有节点崩溃。

So low, medium, high, which is basically a rough ranking of how easy it is it is it to do and how bad is it result in. So the worst would be something like chain split. Right? Forking off people and making double spending happen. Second least fast would be that would be like, I can send a message, and it gets sent to everyone else and everyone crashes.

对吧？这类漏洞可以顺着清单继续往下看。这需要大量准备工作，可能需要花费资金，如果是小漏洞的话。这就构成了不同层级。

Right? That kind of and you can keep going down the list too. This takes a bunch of setup. It may cost some money, and if I know a minor, that kind of thing. And that's kind of like the strata there.

但漏洞的严重程度也决定了披露时效。如果是链分裂这类难以实现的未知漏洞，可能会延迟几个版本才披露。比如可能直到最后一个旧版本结束生命周期后才告知——毕竟我们这三年来一直提醒你们升级系统。

But if it's a and then also the the the severity also informs how long it takes to be told about it. Because if it's something if it's a chain split, if it's if it's unknown and it's kinda hard to do, they might not tell you about it till a few releases after the fact. Example, like, if it could be, like, only after the last funnel version was out of end of life. So we told you to update these last three years. You didn't.

这里展示的是高危漏洞与低危漏洞的区别。比如新版本修复了38版本中的某个低危漏洞（假设是30版本引入的），通常几周内就会被告知。流程应该是这样运作的。嗯。

Here's here's the vulnerability versus something that's low, which is like, hey. Here's a new version, and here's the vulnerability. So if there is a, I believe, a if there's a low vulnerability for 30 that's patched in 38 o, you should hear about within a couple weeks. I believe that's how it works. Mhmm.

我需要重新查阅流程细节，但建立这套机制是项大工程——要确保人们及时获知漏洞信息，并理解系统始终存在缺陷需要持续修补。

I'd have to I'd have to look at the process again, but, it was a big it was a big job to get that process lined up to make sure that people are hearing about these things and understanding that the system still has flaws and needs to be continuously fixed.

嘿，怪胎们？本节目由Silent的好朋友们赞助。Silent每天生产法拉第装备保护你的硬件。我们身处比特币领域，拥有大量需要保护的硬件——你的钱包会发出信号，这些信号可能让你暴露风险。

Sup, freaks? This rep was brought to you by good friends at Silent. Silent creates every day, Faraday gear that protects your hardware. We're in Bitcoin. We have a lot of hardware that we need to secure your wallet emit signals that can leave you vulnerable.

想要Silent装备吗？把你的硬件放进去。我这里就有个Tap Signer，还有Silent卡包替代了我的钱包。之前用Ridge Wallet是因为它能防RFID信号窃取，Silent卡包同样能做到。

You wanna pick up Silence gear, put your hardware in that. I have a tap signer right here. I got the Silent cardholder, replaced my wallet. I was using Ridge Wallet because it secured against RFID signal jacking. Silent, the cardholder does the same thing.

它更轻薄，口袋收纳更方便。我还有法拉第手机套，可以放硬件钱包。实际上我们家里钥匙也用这个。最近抢劫案频发。他们还有必备的法拉第单肩包、法拉第双肩包。

It's much sleeker, fits in my pocket much easier. I also have the Faraday phone sleeve, which you can put a hardware wallet in. We're actually using it for our keys at the house too. There's been a lot of robberies. They have essential Faraday slings, Faraday backpacks.

这是家比特币公司，采用比特币标准运营，拥有比特币储备金。他们通过Strike接受比特币支付。访问slnt.com/tftc可享全场85折，或直接在slnt.com购物时使用优惠码TFTC。

It's a Bitcoin company. They're running on a Bitcoin standard. They have a Bitcoin treasury. They accept Bitcoin via strike. So go to slnt.com/tftc to get 15% off anything, or simply just use the code t f t c when shopping at slnt.com.

专利技术，特种部队认证。还包邮哦，快去看看吧。嘿怪胎们？比特币市场周期总遵循老套路：抛物线暴涨，惨烈崩盘。但这次明显不同。

Patented technology, special operations approved. It has free shipping as well, so go check it out. Sup, freaks? Bitcoin's market cycles tend to follow the same old pattern, parabolic spikes, brutal crashes. This time, it is measurably different.

Unchained的比特币链上检查报告显示，2023至2025周期如何永久重塑了比特币市场结构。内容包含：为何波动性骤降？为何ETF锚定了新的5-6位数价格底线？为何长期持有者仍牢牢掌控局面？立即下载还可参加James Chek的线上活动。比特币已破釜沉舟，获取报告请访问unchained.com/tftc。

The Bitcoin check from Unchained and check on chain shows how the $20.23 to $20.25 cycle has permanently reshaped Bitcoin's market structure. Inside, you'll find why volatility has collapsed, why ETFs have anchored new 5 and 6 figure price floors, and why long term HODLers remain firmly in control. Download now, and you'll also get access to the online event featuring James Chek. Bitcoin has crossed the Rubicon. Get the report at unchained.com/tftc.

网址是unchained.com/tftc。

That's unchained.com/tftc.

关于更新到最新版本的问题，我认为讨论的核心是这场‘不要升级到30版本’的运动。实际上，任何人都可以运行任何他们想要的版本，只要保持向后兼容性。嗯。对于那些告诉人们不要下载的人，你会对他们说什么？

Being, like, updating the latest version, I think that's been a big part of the conversation is this campaign to not update to be 30, which is anybody can run any version they want to as long as it's back compatible. Mhmm. What, what would you say to the people out there telling people not to download?

无论是什么版本，30也好。

No matter what version 30.

我想说，如果你的节点不涉及资金操作，那你做什么都无所谓。我的意思是，你可能会错过一些新功能，比如查看内存池的新RPC接口之类的，但这些并不太重要。当涉及资金安全和节点安全时，保持更新才至关重要。所以如果你是商业用户，应该尽可能及时更新，尤其是小版本更新。比如28.x版本会发布到.x.3。

I would say if you don't run your node with money, it doesn't matter what you do. I mean, you might be missing out on a new RPC or something for, like, looking at your mempool or something, but it's not too interesting. Staying up to date matters when you there's money at stake and your security of your node at stake. So money, if you're a business, you should be updating within when possible, especially minor versions. So 28 dot something will be released at dot three.

如果你无法升级到29.1、29.2或30.0，我建议你至少升级到最新可用的版本。因为有些修复无法简单地反向移植到旧版本。比如脚本引擎这类重大改动，除非遇到容易被触发的公开漏洞，否则开发者通常不会为旧版本进行这类复杂修改。

I would recommend you upgrade to that if you can't update to 29 dot one or 29 dot two or 30 .o. Best case scenario, we update latest and greatest because some fixes can't even be. Some fixes are harder to do in a as a back port, so all the way to old versions. Basically, it's like this big change to, like you know, there'll be some big change to this script engine or or something like that. They're not gonna mess with that for old versions unless unless the bug is easy to hit and becomes public or something like that.

我不是说现在存在这种情况，但这是基本的升级逻辑。所以我建议至少不要停留在已停止维护的版本上。比如你现在用27版，至少应该升级到28的最新子版本，同时也要尝试新版本。像BTCPay这类服务更需要持续测试新版本，以便及时发现API变动并快速适配。

I'm not saying this is the case, but that's just kind of the the thought process here. So I'd recommend stay off of end of life. You know? So if you're on 27, get 28 at least, 28 dot whatever last release was, and then try out the new versions too. If you need to integrate it like like BTCPay server and all those, need to keep trying these new versions to make sure that if there's any API breaks, they get caught early and can get fixed or worked over an appropriate speed.

是的。

Yeah.

除了我们刚才讨论的可见性优势外，像BTC Base这样的项目升级到v30还能获得哪些额外好处？

And what benefits would a project like BTC base ever have upgrading to v 30 beyond what we've already discussed with appearing.

我是说，与其说是直接的好处，不如说，显然你能获得性能上的提升，比如更快的初始区块下载等等。但更重要的是能使用最新的工具修复。这主要是为了确保功能不被破坏，举个例子，比特币核心长期维护了一系列针对BDB的补丁，这是一种钱包曾使用的数据库格式。但这种格式已经基本无人维护了。原项目的维护者很早前就退出了，或者不再提供必要的补丁。

I mean, it's less it's a less thing of benefits per se, but, I mean, there's obviously the performance benefits that you get, so faster IBD and whatnot. But also just access to the latest tooling fixes. It's more about making sure that things aren't broken because, as as an example, Bitcoin Core for a long time had maintained a series of patches for this thing called BDB, which is a database format that the wallet used to use. But this format is extremely not maintained. Basically, the original project maintainers quit a long time ago or don't don't do the patches necessarily necessary.

所以比特币核心不得不自行维护。30.0版本已正式移除了这项支持。里面有个工具可以帮你把钱包迁移到新版本。但如果你运行的是像B2C支付服务器这样更大的软件栈，可能需要更多工作来确保用户从旧格式正确转换到新格式。

So Bitcoin Core had to do that. That support is officially gone for 30.o. So there's a tool in there to migrate your wallet from to the new version. But if you're, like, running a larger software stack like B2C Pay server, there's probably more involvement on making sure that your users go from the old old format to the new format properly.

那新格式是什么？是一群开发者直接写了个新数据库吗？

And what is, what is the new format? Did a bunch of developers simply just write a new database?

不是。应该就是SQLite吧。嗯对。

No. It's just that SQLite, I think. Okay. Cool. Yeah.

就是个适用于我们所需数据量的标准格式。

Just like a standard format that works for the sizes we care about.

这挺有意思的。SQLite这几年变得超级流行。我和Justin Moon聊过很多次关于SQLite的优势，但

So That's that's that's funny thing. Like, it's, like, SQLite. That's become extremely popular in recent years. I've talked to Justin Moon a lot about empowers of SQLite, but

确实。

that's Yeah.

2009年比特币问世时，中本聪可用的工具确实非常有限。

It's extremely dealing with with Bitcoin being released in 2009 and the tools that were at Satoshi's Yeah.

每当项目能摆脱像BDP这样的依赖时，我们的处境就会更好。比如OpenSSL曾经是我们必须达成的共识组件，但很久前就被移除了。我们基本上重新实现了许多小项目所需的部分功能，其余部分要么移除，要么替换为标准组件。

And and that's where And every every time the project gets to get rid of a dependency like BDP, the better off we are because these like, open SSL used to be a thing that we had to have in consensus that was removed a long time ago. There's all these different little projects that we basically reimplemented just the parts we need, and then the rest is removed, or we use or or we swap them out for really standard components.

是的。我们上次讨论OP_RETURN是在六月份当面交流时，是五月还是六月？

Yeah. So the last time we spoke about the op return was when we saw each other in person in June, May or June?

我想是五月。

May, I think.

五月。BTC++大会。那是德克萨斯州奥斯汀一场非常非常有趣的比特币开发者聚会。关于OP_RETURN的整个辩论，从你的角度来看会如何阐述？

May. BTC plus plus. We're very, very interesting get together of Bitcoin developers in Austin, Texas. And, I guess, just to cover that whole debate about return, how would you frame it, from your perspective?

那大概是我停止关注的时候，因为亲自参会后我终于弄明白：他们真正的解决方案是什么？我们都同意存在问题，有人认为灾难性，有人觉得只是垃圾信息干扰——虽然都不喜欢那些JPEG，但该怎么处理？比特币核心开发者一直说，要在不造成严重中心化压力和点对点网络问题的情况下，从机制上自动区分垃圾信息确实很难。

So I think that that was kind of where I stopped paying attention because I went in person and was able to finally get out kind of like, well, what's their, what what do they think the solution really is? We all agree there's some level of problem. Some people think it's catastrophic. Some people think it's spammy and noisy, but we don't love the JPEGs, but what do we do about it? And Bitcoin Core kind of people have been saying, well, it's really hard to disentangle what spam mechanically and automatically without without causing great centralization force and and peer to peer problems in general.

对吧？我们本想通过打击JPEG来维护货币属性，结果反而损害了比特币的根本货币特性。当我追问'如果按照你们的路线走，比特币核心的终极愿景是什么'时，本质上他们主张建立一种脚本语言，或者维护一份需要节点间传播的'黑名单脚本'，让人们自动更新配置来过滤这些内容。

Right? We we heard we're trying to save the moneyness by punishing JPEGs, but then we end up hurting hurting the moneyness, the fundamental moneyness of Bitcoin. Whereas I asked, like, hey. What is your ultimate vision for Bitcoin Core if we went down your path? And, essentially, it ended up being this argument of we'll have kind of a scripting language or possibly, like, you know, this this this list of bad scripts that we have to pass around to other nodes, and people are automatically updating their configuration scripts to, like, filter these.

正如你所见，这种方法本质上是中心化的，我最终得出的结论是：我认为这座桥无法跨越。Knots社区曾尝试通过建立过滤器信任网络来实现，但这直接破坏了比特币的内在货币属性。关于这点，我实在无话可说。当然，你们可以继续提问。

And as you can see, like, this kind of method is inherently centralizing, and I I basically came away with I don't think this is this bridge is gapable. There's been some efforts in the knots community to do this where you essentially have a web of trust of filters, and it it just breaks the inherent money in this Bitcoin. I don't know what else there is to say about that. I mean, you can you can ask more questions, of course.

不。我属于讨厌JPEG的那一派。我觉得它们很烦人，不喜欢它们膨胀UTXO集的状态——虽然严格来说甚至不是JPEG，就是些任意数据。

No. I mean, I think I fall in the camp of I hate the JPEGs. I think they're annoying. I don't like that they're bloating UTXO set or admit it was not even JPEG. It's just like the arbitrary.

对，Ordinals协议就是任意数据。

Yeah. Ordinals arbitrary.

Ordinals会塞满UTXO集。没错。

Ordinals fills up the UTXO set. Yeah.

好，那我们直接切入主题。主张修改返利机制和取消限额的核心论点是：人们现在用非最优方式往交易里塞任意数据，导致UTXO集膨胀。是这样吧？

Yeah. Well, I guess let's jump into that. Like, the core argument for changing up return and increasing the limit, you're taking the limit cap off altogether. Basically comes down to the fact that people that are injecting arbitrary data into transactions are doing it in a nonoptimal way that's bloating the UTXO set. Correct?

是的。大多数人采用所谓的'描述符'方式，在隔离见证或Taproot中可以把JPEG放在输入侧，享受见证折扣，费用只需四分之一。而Opera链的旧方法成本要高出四倍。关键论点是：如果你需要把某些载荷（比如密码学证明，比如graph16知识证明）放在输出端...

Yeah. Moe almost everyone does what's called an description, which means, in SegWit or Taproot, you can put the JPEG essentially in the input side, and you get the witness discount for it. So you pay four times less. Opera churn is an older way of doing it, which costs four times as much. And the the argument is that if you need it to be in the if you need some sort of payload to be in the output, like, let's say, a cryptographic proof, it's called the graph 16 knowledge proof.

这些数据超过80字节但必须存在于交易中。有人提出的理论方案是——其实更温和的做法——把它们塞进看似公钥的UTXO里。节点就得永久存储这些数据以防有人花费该输出。既然现有无数种嵌入数据的方式（危害程度不一），我们干脆提供危害最小的方案说：用这个吧。我个人对钱包软件该有多'固执己见'也有看法。

That's too big for it's bigger than 80 bytes, but it needs to be somewhere in the transaction. So what what people were were theorizing about doing, actually, it's softer to do is stuff it in UTXOs that look like public keys. And so nodes have to store this forever just in case someone tries to spend that output. If there's already these myriad of ways of embedding data more or less harmful, basically, we hand them the least harmful method and say, here, use this one. I also have personal opinions on kind of how opinionated we should be about what the best wallet software is.

所以我担心如果人们设置自己那些过于具体的参数（不是指常规参数和调节项），这真的会导致错误，并最终以其他方式削弱比特币的货币属性。举个例子，在最新的knots 29版本中，如果使用默认设置，新版的闪电通道将无法在他们的节点上传播。我认为这很好地说明了他们要么缺乏对过滤目标的沟通，要么就是单纯不了解自己的行为正在损害比特币的货币特性——打着拯救比特币的旗号。如果需要我可以进一步展开。

So I worry that if people set their own, you know, hyperspecific arguments, like not like arguments and knobs, that it really causes mistakes and ends up kneecapping the money in this Bitcoin in other ways. So I'll give you one example. For the knots 29 release, which is the latest release they have, the new version of Lightning channels would not be able to propagate on their nodes if you use the default settings. And so I think that's a great example of either lack of communication on their part of what they're trying to filter or just ignorance, right, of what they're doing is causing the moneyness of Bitcoin to be heard for the sake of saving Bitcoin, so to speak, supposedly. I can go more into that if you want.

是啊，具体会怎样破坏闪电通道呢？

Yeah. Like, how would it mess up the Lightning channels?

新型闪电通道以及ARC、Spark等方案（可能还有其他几个）都采用了这种卡车交易模式，即版本3交易。问题不仅在于版本3交易是否有效或可传播，更在于它们允许子交易支付时实现零手续费。但在knots 29当前版本中，这些交易会被判定无效，直接禁止传播。

So the new style lightning channels as well as the ARC, Spark, there's probably a few others. They're all using this pattern of the truck transactions, so version three transactions. Not only is it the version three being valid or to relay, but it allows them to be zero fee if paid for by a child. So specifically in knots 29, the current release, those are invalid. It does not allow those to propagate.

你的承诺交易会被本地节点直接丢弃。即便修复了这个问题，他们还禁止了临时粉尘交易。记住这个规则：原本允许交易中包含单个粉尘输出（只要在打包后立即清理）。但现在他们禁止了这个功能——这些粉尘可以是1聪、2聪直至粉尘上限。而Taproot原本允许的最小输出是330聪。

So your commitment transaction will simply be dropped by your local node. Even if that was fixed, then they also ban ephemeral dust. So remember, this femoral dust is the rule where you're allowed to have a single dust output in transaction as long as it's cleaned up immediately after in a package. And they disallow the function where this dust could be, like, one Satoshi, two Satoshi, all the way up to the dust limit. So Taproot, the smallest output is allowed normally at 330 Satoshis.

所以1到329聪的输出现在都会被判定无效并丢弃，即便已被花费。他们声称这是为了阻止JPEG（序数理论等），但实际上这个功能正被新型闪电通道使用——这个功能空间本就是设计来使用的。这本质上会重创那些使用该软件并尝试通过闪电网络进行自托管支付的用户。

So one through three twenty nine would be considered invalid and simply dropped even if it's spent. And, again, the motivation here is to stop JPEGs because ordinal theory, whatnot. But in reality, this is just like, this feature is being used in the new Lightning channels. Like, that that space of the feature is intended to be used. And so this is essentially going to kneecap anyone using the software and trying to do self custodial payments using Lightning.

你说的v3交易是指Bech32的第三版吗？还是...

When you say v three transactions, is that is that, like, version three of Beck 32? Or

不不不，不是的。这是交易版本号，交易数据结构里有个版本字段。

No. No. No. That's not It's it's the transaction version numbers. There's a version field.

嗯。328DotO及更高版本的版本字段被视为Relay的标准配置，不过出于某些技术原因（这里就不深入讨论了），它也支持零p交易之类的功能。大概就是这样。是的。

Mhmm. The version field 328DotO and and newer is is is considered standard for Relay, but it also enables things like zero p transactions for technical reasons that I won't get into here, but that's kind of, like, the gist of it. Yeah.

不。好吧。你之前告诉我，我们有记录显示自从b t plus BTC plus plus以来你其实一直没怎么关注，但我觉得我之所以那周离开是因为我情绪相当激动——我不想说被触怒，但确实有点情绪化。就像，这到底是怎么回事？我不想...

No. Okay. You told me before we have record that you really haven't been paying attention since b t plus BTC plus plus, but I think I came away from that week because I was highly I don't wanna say triggered, but I was, like, a little emotional. Like, what is going on here? Don't I don't wanna I

我当时有点...有点失去动力。我以为我们可能已经弥合了部分分歧，达成了某种共识找到解决方案，但之后我就不这么认为了。事实证明我的想法是对的。几个月过去了，我还是看不到转机。

was a little I was a little demotivated. I thought I thought there was a chance that we had bridged some of some of this gap and come to an understanding where there's some solution, but I just after that, I didn't think so. And I think it was it was born out to be true. I just I don't, you know, I don't see it months later.

不。你知道吗，很多人跑来我的X和YouTube等平台留言问'你为什么不讨论这个？'。就像，我不想给这事增添热度。而且我觉得我从BTC plus plus得出的结论就是：这些交易在共识层面是有效的。

No. You know, get a lot of and it's funny. I've a lot of people hopping in my benches on x and on YouTube and other places saying, why aren't you talking about this? Like, I don't wanna breathe air into it. And I can't I think I walked away from BTC plus plus with the conclusion in my mind, like, these things are consensus valid.

你根本无法阻止有效交易上链。如果想改变规则，就需要通过软分叉修改OP_RETURN之类的艰难讨论。如果不专注于此，我觉得你追求的只是皮洛士式的胜利。说到对比特币核心项目的批评——我们五月份当面也聊过——我认为这完全是一次灾难性的公关沟通失败，正是这种'比特币核心在未与社区协商就随意更改政策规则'的观感让这么多人持续感到愤怒。

Like, there's nothing you can do to stop valid transactions from getting in. If you wanna change it, you're gonna have the harder conversation of a soft fork to change up return or something like that. And if you're not focused on that, then I don't I I think it's you're you're looking for a Pyrrhic victory there. And then, I mean, I guess, to be critical of Bitcoin Core, the project, I don't I think we talked about this in May in person too. Like, I think just and it's it's just a massive communications PR failure that I think that's why many people have gotten so triggered, and remain triggered is, the perception is that Bitcoin Core is changing policy rules arbitrarily without without talking to the broader Bitcoin user base.

是啊，确实令人失望。更让我困惑的是，他们的应对方案居然是转向一个凭个人意愿随意更改政策的发行版，而且还完全无视后果。这么说可能有点尖锐，但他们甚至不清楚自己是否打破了用户对网络的预期。

Yeah. It's a little disappointing. And I I find it a little baffling that the response to that is to switch to a distribution that changes policy on a whim of one guy, and completely ignorant too. Like, no I mean, I guess I'm being pointed here. But mentioning these like, they would did not know if they're breaking people's expectations of the network.

据我所知，他们至今没有改变路线。那么谁来捍卫作为货币的比特币呢？我看不出会是他们。

And as far as I know, they haven't changed course. So who's defending the money as a Bitcoin? I don't see how it'd be them.

那么，你认为明天会发生什么？你觉得比特币会在第三十次发布时消亡吗？

Well, what do you think happens tomorrow? Do you think Bitcoin dies tomorrow when the thirtieth release?

我坚定地站在‘无事发生’阵营。我认为无论怎样这都不是黑天鹅事件，只是非常非常微小的事情。所以如果人们能更新到相对较新或较近的版本，我会很高兴——为了网络的健康、安全考虑，也包括每周交易、终端粉尘等问题的解决。看到这些在现实中取得进展是件好事。

I I'm firmly on nothing ever happens team. I think it's not a black swan event no matter what. It's like a very, very minor thing. So I'm happy if people just update to relatively minor, or relatively recent releases, just for the health of the network, for security reasons, and also just the weekly transactions, terminal dust, all those things getting out there. It's good to see these getting traction in real life.

是的。我在《兔子洞回顾》里说过这个——忘了是两三周前了——我在那期节目里宣称，一年后我们回头看时，会笑着想起现在的担忧。他知道会发生什么，但我也坚定地属于‘无事发生’派。

Yeah. The I said this on rabbit hole recap. I forgot it was two or three weeks ago, but I proclaimed, stated during that episode, like, we're gonna look back a year from now. We're gonna be laughing that I think this is what I think is gonna happen. He knows what's gonna happen, but I am also firmly in the nothing ever happens camp.

对。我觉得我们回头会说：还记得我们当时为这事争论吗？

And Yeah. I think we'll look back and be like, yeah. Remember we're fighting about that. Yeah.

我认为重要的是从中吸取教训，无论这些教训是什么。有些教训是负面的，对吧？但本质上，作为一个基础设施项目，要尽力维护品牌信誉——不让人亏钱，这才是重点，而不是试图同时满足所有用户（这不可能）。同时要传达：人们运行不同节点软件也没关系。

I think I think it's important to try to take some lessons from it, whatever those lessons are. And then, I mean, some of the lessons are negative. Right? But, basically, doing what you can to keep your brand as far as, like, a infrastructure project, which doesn't lose people's money, I think, and making that really your focus rather than trying to cater to every user at once, which is impossible, but also just trying to communicate that it's okay if people run their own node software that differs. Right?

这其实取决于另一方，个人自己。自主权。人们总是忘记这个事实：运行节点99.9%的情况下是为了你自己。

It it really is up to the other group, like, the person. Right? Self sovereignty. And I think people keep forgetting this fact that running the node 99.9% of the time is for you. Right?

这是为了你的自主权、你的安全、你的隐私。你这样做通常不是在帮助网络，几乎永远只是为了自己——这才是重点所在。

It's it's for your sovereignty, your security, your privacy. It's you're not generally helping the network doing this. This almost all the time, it's just for you, and that's where the focus should be.

是的。但我认为人们对单个全节点的力量及其对网络其余部分的影响存在普遍误解。你知道吗？这有点像重提那些在劳动力中发生过的对话，建立一个经济节点。我认为通过运行某个特定版本的实现，你完全可以在社交层面发出信号。

Yeah. But I think there is a broad misconception about the power of an individual full node and its influence on the rest of the network. You know? It's kind of rehashing these conversations that happened on the workforce, set up an economic node. I think you can definitely socially signal by running a certain version of a certain certain implementation.

但是

But

没错。政策最终会变成与之镜像对立的存在。对吧？所以区块大小战争就是不容忍的少数派——基本上就像如果一小部分受经济利益驱动的用户会拒绝共识内容，那么其中就涉及某种边缘政策，可能促成软分叉。但在政策层面则相反，一小部分人容忍某种交易格式，就能在实践中让这些交易通过，即使90%的网络节点不同意。

Yeah. Policy ends up being kinda like the mirror inverse of that. Right? So the block size wars was the intolerant minority or intolerant minority, where, basically, it's like if a small fraction of economically motivated users will reject things consensus, then it kind of there's brinksmanship involved that might enable soft work. But with policy, it's the inverse where a small percent of people who are tolerant of a certain transaction format lets them through in practice even if 90% of the network doesn't.

我觉得这里有很多隐喻，技术寓言基本上就是平行对照。

And I think there's a bunch of metaphors here, like technical allegories pretty much are parallels.

这个见解非常深刻。我从未这样想过，这种镜像对立关系——共识优先于政策。不容忍的少数派能对共识产生比对政策更大的影响。

That's a really good insight. I never thought of it that way, the inverse, consensus first policy. Intolerant minority can affect consensus more than they could policy.

一个容忍的少数派可以让更多内容得以传播。他们无法减少传播内容。而不容忍的少数派可以影响共识。就像，收缩共识是核心，是相对容易的部分，而在政策层面扩展才是更容易的。扩展总是简单的。

A an intel a tolerant minority can make more things relay. They can't make less things relay. An intolerant minority can affect consensus. Like, shrinking consensus is the heart is the easier part while expanding policy is the easier part on the on the policy side of things. It's easy to expand.

限制则很困难。这就像镜像宇宙的法则。硬分叉很难实施，软分叉相对容易。在传播层面，扩展容易，限制困难。

It's hard to restrict. It's kinda like the mirror universe here. It's it's hard to hard fork. It's easier to soft fork. It's in Relay, it's easier to expand, harder to restrict.

那么

So

展望未来，当末日来临又过去时——嗯。明天，我们继续前进。我想尘埃终会落定。嗯。关于僵化问题有很多讨论，比特币需要哪些改变，比如——而且比特币核心团队不会在明天发布第三十版后就停止对比特币的开发，其他任何实现方案的开发者也是如此。

moving forward, when doomsday comes and goes Mhmm. Tomorrow, we move on. I think the dust will settle. Mhmm. A lot of questions around ossification, what changes are needed in Bitcoin, like and, Bitcoin Core isn't gonna stop working on Bitcoin after version thirties released tomorrow, and the same can be said for any other developer working on any other implementation.

但在你看来，除了明天发布的内容外，人们最应该优先关注哪些事项？

But in your mind, what are some of the top priorities that people need to be focusing on beyond what what gets released tomorrow?

嗯，我是说，加倍重视安全基础设施，不过这点我已经谈过了。所以在确保这个数万亿美元资产未来几年不会崩溃之外，关于人们所说的契约或脚本软工的讨论还会持续。我认为鲁斯蒂·拉塞尔最近提交了一个相对严肃、更具体的提案，他试图重写比特币脚本——本质上是对现有脚本的极致强化。但脚本更新的方式其实有很多种，具体取决于你想实现什么目标以及如何实现，这会决定你采用哪种方式。

Well, I mean, doubling down on the security infrastructure, but I already talked about that. So aside from making sure that this multitrillion dollar asset doesn't fall over in the next few years, there is a continuing conversation on what people call covenants or scripting softworks. I think that'll continue. Rusty Russell has submitted a somewhat serious, like, more concrete proposal for his kind of rewrite a Bitcoin script where, taking Bitcoin script and turning it up to 11. But there's, like, a number of different ways that script updates can be done, like, for what what you're trying to accomplish and how you do and that informs how you do it.

所以他提出了一种方案。如果你了解过的话，罗素·奥康纳有他的'简约性'方案。而AJ也有一套基于列表编程语言的激进方案。我认为从长远来看，我们需要更深入地讨论：如果我们想继续迭代比特币的脚本功能，最佳实现路径是什么？这既是重大的工程问题，也涉及理论和工程学的考量。

So he has one way. Russell O'Connor has, like, simplicity if you've if you've read up about that. And then AJ also has his own bullish kind of list based programming language. And I think beyond the near term, we need a bigger discussion about if we want to do if we wanna continue iterating on scripting in Bitcoin, what's the best way to do it? That's a big engineering question as well as, you know, theoretical and engineering.

没错。我几个月前邀请莎伦讨论过'简约性'方案——嗯，当时正在液态主网上线。我们聊过它在协议层实现的潜力。看起来'简约性'方案——显然Blockstream正在推进。

Yeah. I'd pull Sharon a couple of months ago to talk about simplicity Mhmm. Launching on liquid main net. And we talked about the potential of it getting implemented at the protocol level. It seems like simplicity I mean, obviously, Blockstream's working on it.

我记得那篇论文发表大概有十二年了，可能更久

I think the paper dropped, what, like, twelve years ago, maybe even

很久以前。

Long time ago.

自那时起就一直在讨论。最终，在Liquid主网上实现了实时展示，基本上展示了那里可以实现的功能。但似乎，简单性一直对我有某种吸引力，但我认为常见的反对意见是，你打算如何将其引入？

And it's been talked about since then. Finally, got a live on Mainnet on Liquid and basically show showcase what what could be done there. But it seems like I mean, simplicity has always sort of appealed to me, but I I think the common pushback is, how are you gonna get this into?

嗯，是的。常见的反对意见是，哦，这非常复杂。代码量很大。但如果你看看其他提案，它们也在做出严重的权衡。我认为社区必须进行一次诚实的讨论，不涉及边缘政策，你不应该争辩说比特币不值得这样做，我会这么说，因为有些简单性或类似简单的解决方案确实也吸引我，这些并不依赖于Greatscript恢复或牛市。

Well yeah. Comes common pushback is, oh, it's very complicated. It's a lot of lines of code. But if you look at any other proposal, it make they're making severe trade offs too. And I think the community will have to have an honest discussion that doesn't involve brinksmanship of, you shouldn't be arguing necessarily that Bitcoin isn't worth the work, I would say, like this, because there are facets of simplicity or simplicity like solutions that really appeal to me as well, that aren't maintained with the Greatscript restoration or bullish.

因此，我认为必须进行这次讨论。更近期，Antoine和我一直在研究一个较小的提案，即模板哈希，从堆栈检查，以及内部密钥。你有请Antoine来讨论这个吗？没有。好的。

And so I think this discussion has to be made. More near term, Antoine and I have been working on a kind of smaller proposal, which is template hash, checks it from stack, and internal key. Think have you had Antoine on for that? No. Okay.

但几个月前，基本上，这是对另一个提案的轻微修订和重新表述，类似于CTV以及从堆栈检查。我们基本上对这种配对产生了兴趣，并进行了全面的重新思考，关于在Taproot时代后如何实现，那基本上就是我们的提案。这是一个类似CTV的小部件，仅限TapScript。从堆栈检查，只是位348，内部特性位349保持不变。

But a few months back, basically, it's a it's a slight revision and reframing of, another proposal where it's like CTV as well as checks like from stack. And we basically we became intrigued with this kind of pairing and did a roundup rethink of how we would do it post Taproot era, and that was our proposal essentially. It's a a CTV like widget that's TapScript only. Checks it from stack, just bit three forty eight, and internal features bit three forty nine as is.

嗯。对于那些担心修改比特币脚本可能带来 unforeseen consequences 的保守派，你会说什么？他们可能会争辩，我也会争辩，SegWit和Taproot的结合确实带来了一些 unforeseen consequences，比如Ordinals的显现。我想，你如何围绕这些进行对话，真正演练出类似情况的潜在可能性？

Mhmm. What would you say to the ossifiers who are worried about the unforeseen consequences of messing with something like Bitcoin script because they would argue I would argue too that there was some unforeseen consequences with the combination of SegWit, Taproot with the Ordinals Mhmm. Manifestation. I guess, how do you how do you have conversations around that in really wargame through the potential for stuff like that?

是的。这是个有趣的问题，因为我认为Taproot中不足的地方可能不同于那些 unforeseen 的方面。所以，当我从Taproot中吸取教训时，因为它是最近的，我们学到了诸如，嘿，也许在讨论激活之前，我们应该有更多的工具准备。因为在Taproot中，密钥在网络上发布的方式，有这些32字节的密钥，我们称之为x-only密钥。

Yeah. I mean, that's an interesting question because the things I felt that were deficient in Taproot are probably not the same ones, like, from an unspersed unforeseen perspective. So when I look at lessons learned from I mean, there's probably a bunch from SegWit, but let's say from Taproot since it's more recent, we learn things like, hey. Maybe we should have more tooling in place before we actually talk about activation. Because in Taproot, the way keys are published on the network, there are these 32 byte keys, what we call x only keys.

最终这可能是个正确或错误的决定，但我们当时没有从工具链角度进行更充分的讨论。如何用稍有不同的公钥格式实现加密协议？结果反而使某些协议变得更复杂。虽然最终结果还行，但我吸取的教训是：这类重大变更实施前，工具链必须像磐石般稳固可靠。

And this ended up it's may or may not be the right decision in the end, but we didn't have a fuller discussion from the tooling side of things. How do you make cryptographic protocols with a slightly different public key format? And it ended up complement complicating certain protocols. I think it ended up okay, but the lessons I took away are essentially, hey. Tooling needs to be, like, rock like, much more defined before these kind of larger changes are done.

我们正在认真吸取教训。因此我们的工作不仅是宣传'这些操作码功能支持很酷的用例'，或者展示'看看我们写的这些技术博客'。

And we take we're taking that to heart. So part of our efforts is not only saying, hey. These capabilities, these op codes and capabilities enable some cool use cases. Hey. Look at these blog posts we made.

更重要的是，我们希望在讨论激活之前就准备好工具链，在Signet测试网或定制测试网上部署应用。从共识形成角度我们还有距离，从质量保证角度也同样遥远——这就是我从Taproot升级中总结的经验。

But much further than that, we want to be have the tooling ready to go, applications deployed in, like, Signet and and, maybe customs test nets, before we even talk about things like activation, and we're far from that. Even from a mind share perspective, we're far away. But from a quality assurance perspective, we're also far away. So that's kind of, like, the lesson I took away, I guess, from from Taproot.

确实。

Yeah.

理想情况下，如果明天就激活，钱包应该能立即投入使用。但Taproot在2019年激活后，音乐协议花了四年才规范化，又两年才标准化，PSBT支持更是耗时数年。这些工作本应在激活前完成更多。

So, like, if if it activated tomorrow, ideally, we'd be able to have wallets that just spin up and and use things the next day, right, or, you know, practically the next day. And with Taproot, it ended up being like this activated in 2019 or whatever. And then, like, oh, it took four more years for music to to be formalized and another two years to be standardized and ps PSPT support is taking years. And, ideally, this ideally, more of this would have been done prior to activation.

没错。这也是我们比特币开发者面临的共同问题——随着这个货币协议承载着2.5万亿美元价值，我们对它的依赖日益加深。不仅有闪电网络、Liquid等二层方案，还有Arc、Spark和Mints等都在生态中。

Yeah. And it's and same problem we have as a Bitcoiners as species as we're becoming more dependent to a degree on this in this monetary protocol. It's approaching 2 and a half trillion dollars in value. Not only that, I mean, you mentioned earlier, we have all these different second layer solutions, whether it's Lightning, Liquid, Arc, Spark, and Mints in the Yeah. In the bag as well.

不是静默支付。Spark用的是状态链技术。

Silent no. Not silent payments. What the spark use? State chains.

国家链。

State chains.

国家链。

State chains.

还有声音支付，对吧？所有这些技术栈都以某种方式相互关联，但由于涉及更多层级，整体进展速度相对缓慢。即使我打个响指就能获得某种神奇的软件，普及仍需数年时间。

Sound payments too. Right? All these you have this whole tech stack that's all kind of interlinked in certain ways, and the velocity is just kind of slow because there's a lot more layers to it. Even if I snap my fingers and we got some magical software, it would still take years for adoption.

是的。这有点跑题，但既然这是个热门话题——说到模糊测试时，AI对此有帮助吗？有没有什么氛围编程能派上用场？

Yeah. This is out of left field, but just because it's a big topic of conversation, thinking when it comes to, like, fuzz testing, does AI help at all with this? Is there any, any vibe coding that helps?

我今天短暂思考过，能否建立合理的氛围编程测试框架？但模糊测试的关键在于，你需要大量领域专业知识来定义它。否则本质上就是在做完全随机的事情。如果数据真的随机，就无法取得实质性进展——这就像在盲目尝试随机数字。

I was I was briefly considering today, could you get reasonable vibe coded buzz harnesses? So making but with fuzz testing, you really want to make sure, like, you need a lot of subject matter expertise to define it. Otherwise, it does, like, basically really random. And if it's really random data, then it doesn't really make any meaningful progress. It's trying random numbers essentially with no understanding what it's doing.

但若能带着智能编写测试框架，或许...或许真有可能。我不会完全否定这个方向。我认为AI编写测试可能是该领域最有前景的路径之一，只是不确定目前有多少人在实践。

But the way you can write the harness with intelligence so maybe there's, like maybe there is. You know? I wouldn't rule it out. I think AI for writing testing is probably one of the best avenues to go forward with in this space. I'm not sure how much people have been doing it.

我正想问，有人在研究这个吗？应该有吧。显然过去八个月争议不断——你觉得现在普通开发者的心理状态如何？

I was just gonna ask, is anybody working on that? Probably. What would you obviously, there's been a lot of controversy and shit slinging going on over the last eight months. What would you say is the the mental state of your average developer right now?

我的意思是，这要看情况。显然，这类风波会让维护者在某些方面变得更加规避风险，对吧？规避风险可能意味着他们会更长时间忽视问题，或者干脆快速做出决定，直接说事情就是这样。除此之外，我认为大家都准备好重新投入工作了。

I mean, it depends. Obviously, this kind of drama makes maintainers more risk averse in some ways. Right? So risk averse could mean they're going to ignore issues longer, or they're just gonna make snap decisions and just say, like, this is the way it is. Outside of that, I think people are ready to get back to work.

我们正在收尾工作。比如有个项目随着时间推移可能会越来越重要——AJ正在开发一个叫模板共享的功能。我们本质上希望未来的中继讨论能减少政治因素，技术性解决部分问题就能实现这一点，比如允许不同节点采用不同的内存池策略，只要不影响区块链网络的交易转换。我们不想为了挖矿公平性而拖慢区块传播速度，所以即便人们在内存池政策上存在分歧，也要寻找技术手段来缓解矛盾。

We're finishing things. So, like, one project that I think will become more important as time goes on possibly is, AJ is working on this thing called template sharing, which is and we we basically want these future relay discussions to be less political. And so one way of doing that is solving some parts of it technically that you kind of allow you're more likely to allow people to have different mempool policies as long as it doesn't affect conversions of the network in in blockchain terms. So we don't wanna slow down block propagation on the network to make mining fair. So if there are, like, technical ways of mitigating this even when people disagree on mental policies.

这将是个重大突破。与其争论配置文件中该用哪个默认数值，我认为走技术路线更有成效。

That would be a big win. And so I think arguing less about what an what a default number should be in a config file, I think going this way is more fruitful.

确实。那你认为目前比特币面临的最大风险是什么？这个问题问得好。

Yeah. And what would you contend as the biggest risks to Bitcoin right now? That's a great question.

最大风险...我认为对用户和开发者而言仍是法律层面。稳定币团体在美国已是股政治力量，但比特币还没达到这种地位。我们至今没有国会明文规定的法律保护条款，来确保他们不会因我们编写帮助资金转移的代码而将我们监禁。

Biggest risk. I mean, I think it's the legal one for users and developers still. It's it's a, you know, stablecoin people, I would say, are are political force in America, but still not quite there for Bitcoin. Right? We still don't have legal like, explicit legal protections in congressional writing promising that they won't jail us for writing code that helps people move money.

隐私问题将是个难啃的硬骨头。本质上互联网隐私已是非法行为，即便人们大规模实现混币或链下交易，当局仍会维持现状。就像昨天我讨论Spark服务时提到的——他们的政策是在索引器上公开每个账户的所有交易记录。只要获得某个Spark用户的地址或一张Bolt11发票，就能查到他包括余额在内的完整交易历史。

Right? Privacy is gonna be a big bear to to tackle. I think privacy is essentially illegal on the Internet, and they're gonna wanna keep it that way even if people figure out how to do coin joins en masse and keep off chain. The legal I mean, just yesterday, I was talking about Spark, this Spark, service, how it's their policy to, on an indexer, publish every single transaction for every single account. So if you have someone's Spark address or you get a single Bolt 11 invoice from them, a Spark user, you can look up their entire transaction history including balance.

我猜测（虽然他们给出了官方理由）他们真正担心的是联邦政府的打压，无论是 invasive 的数据索取，还是以'无汇款资质'为由的监管打击。即便他们声称自己不是汇款服务商，政府仍可能强行认定，而提供实际隐私功能很可能成为导火索。

And my guess is and they have their stated reasons, but my guess is they're worried about pushback from the federal government, whether that's invasive data requests or, you know, regulatory crackdown on their service for being you know, not for money transmission. I mean, they they'll to claim it. Right? So the government could still try to claim that they're money transmitters even though they claim they're not. And this could be instigated by a service offering practical privacy.

所以我认为这些钱包服务正在走一些更精细的钢丝绳。

So I think that those are some of the finer tightropes they're walking, these these wallet services.

没错。我看到你在引用中本聪的推文时提到它已迁移到Spark

Yeah. I saw you tween you're, quote, tweeting while Satoshi, which is moved to Spark

是的。

Yeah.

作为他们的后端。完全正确。这太疯狂了。任何有技术能力的人都能探查那些数据。

As their back end. Exactly. And that's insane. It's like anybody who's technical enough can sort of probe that data.

确实有点令人惊讶。我当然对此不满意，但为了那个话题说清楚，我提出这点是因为像Wallace Satoshi这样的钱包必须向用户传达这些非隐私的预期，我认为这非常困难。在之前的版本中，他们是托管方。所以Wallace Satoshi说不会把所有东西都发布到数据库，但现在他们依赖的后端却会这么做。

Yeah. It's a little surprising. I'm obviously not happy with it, but I think to be clear for that thread, I'm bringing this up because wallets like and wallets like Wallace Satoshi have to somehow communicate these expectations of nonprivacy to their users, and I think that's very difficult. Prior, like, in previous iterations, they're they they were the custodian. And so Wallace Satoshi says, I'm not going to publish everything on the database, but now they're relying on a back end that does.

你如何更新认知框架？如何让用户对此知情同意？这确实很有挑战性。我不确定解决方案是什么。

How do you update the mental framework of know, how do you get informed consent from your users for that? And that's really challenging. I'm not sure what the solution is for that.

是的。我正想提这个。难道Spark运营商那里没有真正的隐私吗？所有人都应该能在公共索引中被搜索到？所以他们甚至没有...

Yeah. I was gonna pull this up. Yeah. Is there isn't real privacy against the Spark operators that everyone should be searchable in a public index? So it's like, yeah, they're not even

这就是他们的声明。他们就是这么说的。所以我完全可以这么说。然后你看，本·卡门十分钟就给我搞了个工具出来，估计是随手写的。搞定。

That is their stated. That's what they said. So I I feel comfortable saying that's what they said. And then you can like, Ben Carmen whipped up a tool for me in about ten minutes, probably vibe coded it. There we go.

所以如果你收到华莱士·中本聪的发票，系统会立即调出他们的账户。我自己测试过——虽然我不用它处理正经交易——但你知道，它会把我测试交易显示到真实的闪电钱包上。这该怎么向用户解释呢？特别是新用户？Venmo用户可能不介意平台知道交易，但肯定不想让全世界都知道——除非有个按钮能控制。对。

So if you get someone's Wallace Satoshi invoice, it immediately pulls up their account. And so I tested it on my own, which I I don't use it seriously, but, you know, it it would show my test transactions to my real Lightning Wallet. So, you know, it's like, how do you communicate that to a user, especially a new user? How do you communicate that to a user of Venmo, which has one you know, they're maybe okay with the service knowing, but not everyone in the world knowing if they can a button. Yeah.

不，这正是我想说的。就算运营方知道每笔交易，也不意味着你要广播出去。

No. That's what I was gonna say. It's like even if the operator knows every transaction, that doesn't mean you broadcast.

如果他们直接说‘对，我们在API里给你个按钮选择不公开’，然后却没这么做，我反而会更理解他们。真的。

I'd I'd be more sympathetic if they just if they just said, yeah, and then we give you a button in the API or whatever to say, don't publish, and then they just didn't do that. I'd be pretty sympathetic to that. Yeah. Yeah.

现在隐私大战会愈演愈烈。不过我两周前见过第一页开发组的丹·戈尔德，他们似乎进展不错。说到付费联合交易（paid join）时，我觉得得把它定位成交易所的省钱技术。

Now the privacy war is gonna be gonna be a big one. But I saw Dan Gold from page one dev kid a couple weeks ago. It seems like they're making good progress. And Yeah. When it comes to paid paid join specifically, I think we're gonna have to position it as a way to as a sort of cost saving technology for exchanges specifically.

是啊，难就难在这里。要让监管机构接受，我们得把它包装成别的东西。本来就是，对吧？

Yeah. That's I mean, that's the tough thing. It seems like to make it palatable regulator wise, we have to say it's something else. It is. Right?

付费联合交易（pay join）和混币（coin join）本身都能省钱。闪电网络作为省费工具，在特定场景下比链上交易更隐私。ARC、Spark这些系统也能提供类似的隐私权衡。或许该用这些原生系统当特洛伊木马？

Pay join coin joins in general can be potential savings. Lightning is a potential fee is a fee savings vehicle that gets you practical certain certain levels of privacy better than on chain. An ARC, Spark well, all these other systems can also potentially offer those kind of privacy trade offs. Maybe Trojan horse using the the original systems. Right?

是的。所以，呃，我我我不知道你对Chummy immense有什么看法，但我我超爱它们。我我特别喜欢那些腰果钱包，还有当我与之互动时的体验，嗯哼。

Yeah. That's why, like, I I I don't know what your thoughts are on Chummy immense, but I'm I love them. I I love the the cashew wallets and the while it's I interact with and Mhmm.

没错。我认为最大的挑战在于谁运营这些铸币厂。对吧？因为他们无论如何都不能声称自己是非托管的，这根本说不通。不。

Yeah. I think the big challenge is who runs the mints. Right? Because they can't they cannot claim their noncustodial, like, by any stretch of imagination. No.

那么谁来运营它们呢？对。这会带来多大的中心化压力？对吧？因为如果大家都在同一个铸币厂会更高效。

So who runs them? Yeah. How much of a centralizing force is that? Right? Because it's more efficient if everyone's on the same mint.

或许会有来自去中心化的反向压力，比如我们有闪电网络作为连接一切的桥梁，所以中心化的压力可能没那么大。对吧？你只需要有成千上万的运营商。我是说，我想我们会看到的。

Maybe there's, you know, decentralization back pressure from, like, well, we have the Lightning Network as the that inter interconnects everything, so maybe the centralization pressure isn't as big. Right? You just have, like, thousands of operators. I mean, I I guess we'll see.

有些人认为AI会运营铸币厂。它们会意识到这是为自主框架准备的优质货币，然后就会出现这样的时刻。

Some people think the AIs are gonna run the mints. They're gonna recognize that superior money for the agentic framework, and there's gonna be moments.

不。我是说，这纯属阴谋论。

No. Mean, conspiracy theories there.

是啊。但现在我们开始触及事物的哲学层面了，因为无论我们讨论技术栈的哪部分，像Spark就不得不因为政府而做出隐私妥协。也许其他功能如支付合并不会被交易所实现，因为他们担心监管和合规的反噬。显然，Charming immense不仅能提供惊人的隐私性，而且由于它们独立于比特币且高度模块化，你可以从零开始构建一个全新的银行技术栈，提供你想要的所有功能——拥有更好、更安全技术的银行服务，同时避免铸币厂运营者的中心化压力。这就像我们有机会构建一个极其稳健、安全、私密的金融系统，而这 arguably 应该是每个人都想要的。

Yeah. And now but now we're getting into like the philosophical side of things because like no matter what part of the stack we're talking about, like Spark has to make this privacy trade off because of the government. Maybe other things like pay join won't get implemented by exchanges because they're worried about the regulatory and compliance blowback. Obviously, Charming immense can provide not only incredible privacy, but since they're separate from Bitcoin and very modular, you can build a literal new banking stack from scratch that gives you all the functionalities you'd want, from a banking service with better, more secure tech, minus the centralization pressures of the min operator. It's like we have the potential to build an incredibly robust, secure, private financial system, which arguably should be what everybody wants.

但出于某些原因，政府总是把这事搞砸。而且

But for some not for some reason, but the the government just messes that up. And

是啊。而且用户对抵制审查的支付方式需求并不大。我是说，显然存在一些需求，但在西方，比如，似乎没人在乎。那什么能让他们在乎呢？对吧？

Yeah. The also, the user demand just isn't there for censorship resistant payments. I mean, there obviously is some, but in the West, as an example, no one seems to care. And what would make them care? Right?

会发生什么样的事件让他们开始在意？我们是否准备好了应对？这也是另一个问题。对吧？我认为基础技术已经基本解决，比如Coinbase处理大量比特币交易似乎还行，但支付技术仍有不足。

What what events might transpire that will make them care, and will we will we be ready for them? That's the other one too. Right? We're building I think, like, general huddle tech is pretty much solved, I would say. Like, Coinbase can seems to be doing okay with a quadrillion Bitcoin or whatever, but, you know, the the payment technology still isn't there.

所以如果未来比特币支付要以非托管方式真正普及，基础设施必须到位。我觉得这就是我们展望未来时看到的图景。

And so if Bitcoin payments actually need to take off in a noncustodial way in the future, the infrastructure needs to be there. And I think that's kind of what we're looking at, looking at this future.

嘿。昨天Square的公告让我们朝着正确方向迈进了一步。人们等了七年呢。不，我认为压力会来自数字身份证，我的理论是他们会试图向大众强推Worldcoin这类东西，而人们不会喜欢盯着那个球看，然后他们就会在意了。

Hey. We had a good step in the right direction yesterday with the Square announcement. People were waiting for seven years Yeah. For No. I think I think the pressure is gonna be digital ID, and my theory is that they're gonna try and thrust something world coin or something like it on the masses, and people are not gonna be fond of staring into the orb, and then they'll care.

也许吧。是的。

Maybe. Yeah.

是的。我是说，现在我们面临的问题是：你是否乐观地认为，基于比特币的用户体验和产品能发展到无论人们是否想用点对点现金，其体验都能完胜现有系统，纯粹因为更好的用户体验而被采用？

Yeah. That, I mean, now we're getting something like, do you have, are you optimistic about the potential for the user experience and the products built on top of Bitcoin to get to a point where regardless of people's desire to use peer to peer cash, the experience is simply superior to the incumbent system that just gets adopted because it's better UX.

我是说，这取决于层级。它已经比某些东西要好了。国际电汇就是垃圾，而且未来很长时间内都会是垃圾。但我觉得，比特币的某些支付用户体验确实不错，但很多都在自我托管维度上做出了巨大妥协。你知道，如果你只是把钱放在...实际上，这就是它仍然有效的地方。

I mean, it depends on the layer. It's already better than some things. International wires are trash and will continue to be trash for a long time. But I think you'll I mean, some of the payment UXs are really nice in Bitcoin, but a lot of them take steep trade offs in the the self custody dimension. You know, if you just park your money on well, actually, it's this is where it still works.

对吧？把你的比特币放在Coinbase上只有在你只想在Coinbase上交易或使用Base链之类的情况下才有用。但如果你想通过闪电网络给别人付款，我认为它仍然有效，但现在有各种监管压力不让它成功。对吧？我觉得这就是所有摩擦的根源。

Right? Parking your Bitcoin on Coinbase is only useful if you're willing if you're only interested in trading on Coinbase or using base chain or whatever. But if you wanna actually send someone over the Lightning Network of payment, I think it still works, but there's all this regulatory pressure to not let it succeed. Right? And I think that's where all the friction is.

所以如果你能...嘿，你继续。

So if you can hey. Go ahead.

我上周就这么做了。我们和投资组合公司开了个10:31的场外会议。当时在度假村里。三天时间里认识了度假村的一些工作人员，特别是酒吧的。昨晚还给了小费。

I did this last week. We had a we had a 10:31 off-site with the portfolio companies. We're at this resort. And over the course of the three days, got to know some of the the people working at the resort, particularly the bar. And last night, got a tip him.

他有Coinbase账户。我说用闪电网络转账给他，结果用户体验简直糟糕透顶。我这边显示确认了，但他账户一直没收到。我收到了收款确认，但据我所知...（笑）我把他晾在那儿了。

He's got a Coinbase account. I was like, I'll send it over lightning, and the UX was just completely abysmal. And I thought, like, I got a confirmation on my end, but it never hit his account. And I got a confirmation that the payment was received. But from what I understand, and I didn't realize this laughter, I left him.

Coinbase要求通过闪电网络接收比特币的用户向交易对手方索要个人信息。没错。

Coinbase is asking users that accept Bitcoin over Lightning to sort of ask for personal information with the counterparty. Exactly.

嗯。

And Yeah.

这笔交易。就像，什么？

The transaction. It's like, what?

是的。我认为这极其中心化，没人愿意这么做。但如果交易支付量不够大，人们就不会跨越障碍去另一边。因为如果钱放在ETF或其他地方，大家都很满意。他们不需要请求许可，因为钱不会移动。

Yeah. That's I think it's it's incredibly centralizing in that no one will wanna do that. But if transactions the payments payments volume isn't high enough, then people won't jump that hurdle to go on the other side. Because if if money is sitting in an ETF or whatever, everyone's happy with it. They don't need to ask permission because it's not going anywhere.

但如果你想进行支付，所有摩擦就会显现，特别是当你试图从Coinbase或受监管机构发送时。我不知道除了法律变更外我们能否解决这个问题。

But if you wanna make payments, this is where all this friction shows up, especially especially if you're trying to send from a Coinbase or regulated regulated institution. Well I don't I don't know if we could fix that aside from legal changes.

但这完全不道德。比如，我发送了一大笔，我发送了

It's completely immoral, though. Like, I sent the big like, I sent it

哦，是的。给我的狗。我在做一个描述性的。对。

Oh, yeah. For my dog. I'm I'm making a descriptive. Yeah.

哦，我知道。但就像，我在思考这个问题时。就像，等等。我通过比特币发送了15美元、20美元或其他金额到这个钱包。显然，是中心化的Coinbase在运行闪电节点并展示发票。

Oh, I know. But, like, just like, I'm thinking about I was thinking about it through. Was like, wait. I I sent $15, $20 with a bitcoin, whatever it was to this wallet. Like, obviously, it's centralized Coinbase presenting and running the lightning node presenting the invoice.

他们把比特币存放在他们账户的某个地方。我发送给的那个人

They have the Bitcoin sitting somewhere in their account. The guy that I sent

我想它确实适用于Lightspark。不过确实如此。

it to Lightspark does, I think. But yeah.

是啊，Lightspark什么的。钱现在存在某个中心化的第三方那里，那家伙永远拿不到钱。我转了20美元也永远收不回来，因为我觉得这家伙没法找到我，问我要家庭地址之类的。就算他找到我，我也不会给他。

Yeah. Light spark, whatever. It's sitting somewhere in a centralized third party and that guy's never going to get the money. And I sent $20 and I'm never going to get back because I don't think this guy's gonna be able to find me to ask me for my home address and all that. And when he does, I'm not gonna give it to him.

我会说用Zeus之类的工具再生成个新发票，然后我往那里给你转比特币。但Coinbase现在就把那笔钱扣住了。

I'll say spin up another invoice using using Zeus or something like that, and I'll send you the Bitcoin there. But, like, Coinbase just holds that money now.

没错。所以我认为这就是它的用武之地。如果Spark真的流行起来，这就是它的定位。虽然存在隐私方面的遗憾，但如果你愿意接受一个自称非托管（实际上至少部分托管）的系统，或许就足够吸引用户了。但相比更私密的方案，这是我们想去的方向吗？

Yeah. So I think I think that's where you'll see the ride. Like, if Spark does take off, that that's the niche it'll fit. There's an unfortunate privacy thing, but if you if you're willing to accept a system that says it's self con self custodial and it kind of is custodial at least, Maybe that's enough for users to get onboarded. But is that a world we wanna go to versus something more private?

这是个巨大的挑战。

This is, like, big challenge.

是的。今年早些时候和Matt Corallo聊过，他对非托管闪电网络会有阶跃式进步相当乐观。

Yeah. I mean, talking to Matt Corallo earlier this year, he's pretty optimistic that, self custodial lightning will see a step function improvement.

确实比以前好。你会经常听到有人说'这个新二层能解决闪电网络所有问题'，但揭开表象看，它要么在托管模式上妥协，要么在安全性上让步，要么和闪电网络一样存在需要改进的假设。比如宣传即时交易什么的。

Better. It's it's definitely better than before. I think a lot you'll you'll hear, like, oh, this new layer too will fix all Lightning's you know, all the issues Lightning has. But you look under the hood, it's either making chip custody trade offs, security trade offs, or it's or it's making the same assumptions as, like, Lightning needs improvement. So it's like, oh, it's instant transactions.

那么如何实现即时交易呢？哦，你只需要相信这个人不会重复签名。拜托，这根本就是零信任机制，对吧？

And so how do you get instant transactions? Oh, you just trust this person not to sign twice. Like, come on. Like, you know, that's zero comp trust. Right?

我认为在这个行业里，甚至在比特币领域也还存在这种情况。某种程度上掩盖了人们所接受的模式。不过，我也持乐观态度。我觉得未来五到十年还有足够的发展空间来完善流程。

So I think there's a in this industry, there's still a bit of that even in the Bitcoin side. It's kind of hiding what models people are buying into. But, I mean, I'm optimistic too. So I think there's enough there for another five, ten years of development and smoothing of processes.

没错。与此同时，正如你所说，我们需要发起废除《银行保密法》的运动——所有那些侵犯隐私的合规要求和监管都源于此。

Yeah. And in the meantime, in parallel, to your point, we need to wage the campaign to abolish the Bank Secrecy Act where all this That's right. Privacy infringing compliance and regulation comes from.

我们能不能想办法...让《银行保密法》像个人物一样去侮辱特朗普什么的？我在想如何制造宪法危机，这样或许法院就会直接废除它。反正这法案本来就不符合宪法。

Can we somehow get yeah. Can we somehow get the BSA as a person to insult Trump or something? I'm trying to think of way of, you know, instigating constitutional crisis because then maybe the courts will strike it down anyways. It's like, yeah. It wasn't constitutional anyways.

是啊。

Yeah.

不。这说明我们正在处理几十年前遗留的错误决策。有趣的是，《银行保密法》大概是1970年实施的，那时还没...

No. It isn't saying we're dealing with the remnants of mistakes made many decades ago. Funnily enough, 1970, I think, is when the BSA was implemented before it went

...意识到这个法案当时可能就违宪了，只不过因为当时计算机尚未普及。现在情况完全反转了，我们看到那些国家主义者拼命抓住救命稻草，要求所有事情都必须随时上报。真的很荒谬。

on. To see the thing that was vaguely probably not constitutional at the time, except it because we didn't have computing widely. Now that's flipped and kind of seeing the straws being grasped by the statists who want everything to be reported at all times. It's really stark, I guess.

是的。坦白说，我最近没有像应该的那样密切关注进展，但据我所知，这与隐私无关——就像你之前提到的关于编写开源软件可能面临的法律后果那样，这些软件让人们能以点对点方式使用比特币。《清晰法案》中确实有积极表述，不过该法案尚未通过。我不确定相关条款是否已被删除或修改。但

Yeah. And, admittedly, I haven't been following it as closely as it probably should be, but the last I heard, there was this doesn't have anything to do with privacy, to your earlier point about legal ramifications of writing open source software that allows people to use Bitcoin in a peer to peer fashion. There was positive language in the Clarity Act, which hasn't been passed yet. I don't know if it's been taken out or revised out. But

目前尚未被删除。但人们总担心在法案通过前，相关内容会被拿去交换其他利益。对吧？因为现在既有稳定币派系，又有伊丽莎白·沃伦阵营。有人担心沃伦对比特币的敌意甚至超过对稳定币的敌意，所以可能会在这方面进行利益交换。

Has not has not yet been taken out. But there's always a worry that until the job's done, it's gonna get horse traded for something else. Right? Because, again, you have the stablecoin bros, stablecoin contingent, and you've got the kind of Elizabeth Warren contingent at the moment. And people are worried that Elizabeth Warren actually hates Bitcoin more than they actually hates to stablecoins, so maybe a trade would happen there.

我们拭目以待。长远来看我是乐观的，但这场斗争需要在国会和法庭上真刀真枪地展开。

We'll see. Tires. I'm optimistic long term, but you need to actually battle this out in in congress and in the courts.

呃，我想说——虽然可能是个不切实际的幻想——但如果他们真施加监管压力，而我们能回归朋克精神本源，让一群志同道合的开发者突然涌现并开始不受约束地开发...那简直酷毙了

Well, I I mean, I think my, I'm gonna call it a pipe dream, but would be incredibly badass is that if they did push and put the regulatory pressure on, if you just got back to the site for punk roots and you just had a bunch of synonymous devs pop up and just start launching things without

这才是关键所在。我对此持略微不同的观点。我认为美国有望通过言论自由和计算自由成为自由基地。如果我能打个响指就让美国成为所有非托管开发都能受到法律完全保护的地方，再也不用担心会因为系统可能被用于洗钱而被抄家——这对全世界都将是巨大胜利，而我们可以推动这个方向。

That's anybody who they are. So I have a slightly contrarian point of view on this, I guess. Yeah. I think it's a good idea of something like that, but I see America as a potential base for freedom through freedom of speech and computing. And if if I just snap my fingers and America became the place where all all development all non custodial development is blessed legally and protected a 100%, and there's no question that you're gonna be dragged out of your house because your system helped enable someone else to do money laundering, I think that'd be a huge win for the world, and I think we can push that way.

我的观点是：并非所有对开发者不利的事情都对比特币有利。我们应该推动在法治国家——甚至可能加强法治——让开发更便利，再通过互联网将这种模式输出到全世界。

I I don't think that everything bad for me as a developer is good for Bitcoin, I guess, is my point. I think we can kind of push the other direction and make it easier in countries with law and order, potentially more law and order, and export that goodness worldwide through the Internet.

噢格雷，我喜欢这个观点。这种乐观态度很棒。我们应该以身作则。

Oh, Greg, I like that. I like that optimistic view. We should lead by example.

我还是要说之前提到的意思。

I still have said earlier. I mean

这些工具的潜力，潜力是没问题的。比如，我们可以构建

The potential the tools, the potential is all right. Like, we can build

是的。

Yeah.

一个极其透明、稳健、抗压、安全且相对私密的金融体系。潜力就在那里。

An incredibly transparent, robust, resilient, secure, relatively private financial system. Potential's there.

总的来说，美国的言论自由确实越来越强。唯一需要注意的是，哦，但如果你谈到钱。突然间，这就成了可以让你永远坐牢的法律漏洞。所以我认为，在接下来的几年里，我们应该尽可能扩大这些第一修正案带来的权益。对吧？

In general, freedom of speech has gotten stronger and stronger than The United States. The one caveat is, oh, but you did talked about money. And suddenly, this is, a legal loophole to throw you in jail forever. So I think, like, just keep maximizing these First Amendment gains as far as we can in the next few years. Right?

我认为这是有可能的。

I think I think it's possible.

我需要继续推进。是的，这太棒了。这是我很久以来第一次深入研究比特币核心的东西。

I need to. Let's keep pushing. Yep. It's been awesome. This is the this is the first time in a while I've gone deep on Bitcoin Core stuff.

这总是重新点燃我内心那个被压抑的极客之魂，让我怀念纽约比特币开发者社区的黄金岁月，那时我常为这些东西狂热不已。2015到2020年间，我可能参加了80%的比特币开发者会议。人们很容易忘记维护和改进比特币协议背后那些错综复杂的细节。

And it always reignites the the sub subdued nerd in me, and it makes me miss New York bit devs in the in the heydays when when I would nerd out with this stuff for yeah. I mean, I think I went to probably 80% of the bit devs between 2015 and 2020. And it's easy to forget the intricacies and the complexity involved in actually maintaining and, improving the Bitcoin protocol.

是啊。

Yeah.

而大多数人对此完全不知情。

And most people are completely unaware.

没错。就像，至少系统底层有很多复杂工作在进行。这些不是面向用户的直接功能，所以很难直观体现价值。

Yeah. Like, if anything else, there's a lot going under the hood. It doesn't directly it's not a feature for the user, so it's hard to see and show value.

我现在也在思考，随着更多机构入场——比如最后一个问题——你是否相信，当银行等机构进场时，他们的技术部门会理解掌握协议底层复杂性的重要性？

Now I'm thinking too, like, as more institute like, do you have faith that, the last question? Do have faith that, like, as more institutions get in, if banks get in, that they'll have tech departments that will understand the importance of understanding the intricacies of the protocol level.

这个嘛...我不确定。我觉得我们有点像处在永恒的'九月新生潮'状态。本以为会收到更多行业直接反馈，但实际没有。甚至系统出问题时都没人真正抱怨。开发过程中存在反馈闭环的问题。

That, I don't know. I can't I think it's kinda we're also in an eternal September kind of situation. I would have expected more industry feedback in a direct way, but you don't get that. People don't even really complain when things are broken. It's it is like a there's a feedback loop problem with development.

所以我期待能找到解决这个问题的办法，特别是随着生态规模扩大。对吧。

So I looking forward to find ways to solve that too, especially as things get bigger. Right.

好好想想吧，怪胎们。好了，在我们结束前还有什么最后想法吗？

Think about it, freaks. Alright. Any final thoughts before we wrap up here?

感谢邀请我参加，对未来依然充满期待。没错，两天后的未来。

I appreciate you having me on, and excited for the future still. Right. Future two days from now.

比特币明天就会完蛋。所以，趁它还能撑几周好好享受吧。你们只有确切地说24小时。

The Bitcoin dies tomorrow. So Yeah. Enjoy it while it lasts for weeks. You gotta Exactly. Twenty four hours.

是啊。

Yeah.

所有比特币交易在未来24小时内都是合法的。好了，再见。谢谢。

All all Bitcoin transactions are legal next twenty four hours. Alright. See you. Thanks.

和平与爱，怪胎们。谢谢

Peace and love, freaks. Thank

感谢收听本期TFTC节目。如果你已经听到这里，想必从中获得了一些价值。如果是的话，请广泛分享给你的亲朋好友。我们希望能传播这些信息。另外，无论你在哪个平台收听，无论是YouTube、苹果还是Spotify，请确保点赞并订阅节目，如果能在播客平台留下评分，那将对我们帮助很大。

you for listening to this episode of TFTC. If you've made it this far, I imagine you got some value out of the episode. If so, please share it far and wide with your friends and family. We're looking to get the word out there. Also, wherever you're listening, whether that's YouTube, Apple, Spotify, make sure you like and subscribe to the show, and if you can leave a rating on the podcasting platforms, that goes a long way.

最后但同样重要的是，如果你想提前一天获取无广告的节目内容，请务必下载Fountain播客应用。你可以访问fountain.fm找到它。每月5美元，就能提前一天收听每期节目，无广告干扰，支持节目发展，同时为你提供超值体验。所以也请考虑通过Fountain订阅。感谢你的时间，我们下次见。

Last but not least, if you wanna get these episodes a day early and ad free, make sure you download the Fountain podcasting app. You can go to fountain.fm to find that. $5 a month, get you every episode a day early, ad free, helps the show, gives you incredible value. So please consider subscribing via Fountain as well. Thank you for your time, and until next time.