By Bitcoin Iris - 6 mhí ó shin - Am Léitheoireachta: 15 nóiméad
Rialú Boinn Dhá Thaobh
Tá an t-alt seo le feiceáil i Bitcoin Irisí “An tSaincheist Aistarraingthe”. Cliceáil anseo chun liostáil anois.
Tá paimfléad PDF den alt seo ar fáil le haghaidh íoslódáil.
Self custody is an essential requirement when using Bitcoin to fully benefit from all the properties that make Bitcoin valuable in the first place. To be able to truly transact without permission, benefiting from the censorship resistance of the network, you have to control your own keys. You can’t outsource that to someone else, you can’t trust the neutrality or honesty of a custodian, you must solely have direct control of corresponding private keys to your UTXOs. If you fail to do this, you will always be a second class user. Bitcoin as a system gives you almost total control over your own funds; control of custody, when it is spent and how it is spent, even the ability to completely destroy your coins through deleting your private keys.
When you outsource that direct control of the actual Bitcoin UTXOs on the network to a third party, you relinquish that control in its entirety. That’s not to say that there aren’t middle grounds to that, such as Lightning, Statechains, and other proposed second layer designs, but ignoring those for a moment, when you do not control your UTXOs directly, you do not have the ability to transact whenever and however you want. You do not have the ability to destroy and render your coins inaccessible if you want. You do not have something that is permissionless in your ownership and control.
So why do people choose not to withdraw their coins and leave them with a custodian? Some combination of apathy, lack of understanding, fear or doubt about their ability to correctly manage their own keys without losing money, or even concerns over being able to physically keep their keys safe. There are numerous reasons, and over time we will have different solutions to address the root cause. But one of the big causes for such a choice has yet to even really happen to any serious degree; the raw economics of blockspace utilization. If you only have a couple of dollars of bitcoin –or even less in the case of zapping satoshis around with things like custodial Lightning solutions– you cannot practically take control of those coins or spend them on chain cost effectively. Even when fees get that high however, it's still cost effective for a user in such a situation to handle their Bitcoin until they have enough to be able to afford to withdraw to self-custody at a reasonable cost.
That is not going to be the case forever. No matter what happens, if Bitcoin actually succeeds and becomes widely adopted for real use among normal people, that cost of blockspace is going to trend up; a tide that continues rising in sync with the growth of users forever. It will even rise without user growth whenever economic activity and money velocity picks up among the existing userbase. It is an inevitable reality, it cannot be stopped by anything short of the stagnation or complete failure of Bitcoin féin.
So what is the solution here? That is pretty much the root of the tug of war between the old big block versus small block divide that has been going on since the beginning of Bitcoin. Taking custody of your own bitcoin by having them sent to key pairs you control is a foundational aspect to Bitcoin, but so is being able to actually validate that a Bitcoin UTXO controlled by a key you possess was really created on-chain. The relationship between the costs of these two things is, and will forever be, an eternal tug of war between the costs of one versus the other. If you make the verification cost of blockspace cheaper and increase its availability, more people will utilize it. If you make the use of it more efficient, more people will utilize it.
You can tweak those variables all day long, back and forth, you can make computational verification cheaper, you can make blockspace use more efficient, but either one will just enable more people to use it and inevitably (unless we are all wrong about Bitcoin) lead to an increase in demand for blockspace. And that is just looking at things in a basic vacuum of economics and how demand and availability regulate each other. That isn’t even considering the actual engineering trade-offs of the specific ways to accomplish either thing, and the downside risks each optimization creates.
Agus tá go leor malairtí i gceist leis na bealaí sonracha go léir inar féidir ceachtar de na spriocanna sin a bhaint amach. Alán. Fiú amháin ag an bprótacal Lightning, leis an gile innealtóireachta ar fad taobh thiar de, a thugann méadú easpónantúil ar an tréchur idirbheartaíochta, tá dícheangail agus teorainneacha ollmhóra trádála ann. Is é an prótacal dara sraith is inscálaithe é agus é ag an am céanna ar an bprótacal dara sraith is neamhiontaofa atá molta go dtí seo i dtéarmaí tréchur i gcomparáid le hiontaofacht. Ach fiú tá míbhuntáistí agus difríochtaí bunúsacha aige.
Cliceáil ar an íomhá thuas chun síntiús a íoc.Lightning’s security model is reactive, meaning that the only way to ensure that you don’t lose money is to pay attention to the blockchain and react quick enough if someone tries to steal funds from you by submitting an old channel state to chain. While this is a perfectly workable solution to that problem, it is a great departure from the security model of just unilaterally holding a UTXO. All you have to do in that situation is verify once that a coin sent to you on chain was actually confirmed and then you are done. You do not have to continuously pay attention to anything after that in order to keep your money secure.
This fundamental difference between using bitcoin through Lightning rather than directly on chain will have a lot of consequences for users with less money or cost tolerance for blockspace. The higher the average fee rate trends up, the more people will be pushed into locking their coins on Lightning to be able to actually spend them more cost effectively. It doesn’t even begin to end there with them being forced into a reactive security model though. Lightning routes payments through Hash Time Lock Contracts to guarantee that the money is fully sent or fully refunded across an entire payment route. This is actually never done for small value payments that are not cost effective to enforce on the blockchain if necessary. Those 1-2 satoshi payments getting zapped around for fun are sent in an entirely trusted fashion without using HTLCs and just hoping no one along the path screws up or refuses to cooperate. As fees rise on the base layer, this will have to be done for larger and larger payments. It makes zero economic sense to spend $5 in fees to enforce a payment worth only $1. Imagine $10 fees, $20 fees, etc. As the fee market matures and the base level of fees rise, even the nature of payments across the Lightning Network will fundamentally change, moving from a trustless system enforceable on-chain to one ultimately depending on honest behavior.
Séidfidh an dinimic chéanna cibé an féidir le húsáideoir cainéal Lightning a oscailt agus a chothabháil ar an gcéad dul síos (nó an mbeidh duine eile ag iarraidh leachtacht a leithdháileadh ar an gcainéal sin ionas go mbeidh acmhainn glactha ag an úsáideoir). Má tá sé chun costas $10 a dhéanamh le hidirbheartaíocht a dhéanamh ar slabhra, ansin tá tú ar an hook láithreach le haghaidh 20$ - ag glacadh leis nach n-éireoidh rátaí táillí níos measa fós - chun an cainéal sin a oscailt agus gan dabht a dhúnadh. Má tá ort dúnadh go neamh-chomhoibríoch, fiú gan aon HTLCanna san eitilt, tá sé $30 mar go dtógann an dúnadh sin dhá idirbheart. Cé mhéad airgid a chaithfidh daoine a chur isteach i gcainéal chun táillí a mheas ar fiú go mór é? Tosóidh rudaí an-eisiach go han-tapa nuair a thosóidh táillí ag fás go maith nuair a sháraíonn an t-éileamh ar bhlocspás.
So what does this mean? Lightning isn’t enough. It gives a lot more headroom in scaling self-custody, but it does not completely solve the problem and will itself wind up subjected to the exact same economic scaling issues that are present on the base layer of the blockchain. Not to mention introducing new security assumptions in the process along the way. It’s like building up a barrier of sandbags around your house in a flood; it will keep your house safe as long as the water level doesn’t rise above it. But if we are right about Bitcoin and its adoption continues unabated, the water level will keep rising well above the top of that barrier. Lightning by itself is not enough to raise the barrier much higher.
Cén rogha eile nithiúil agus imscartha is féidir é a ardú níos airde? Is sampla nithiúil iad státshlabhraí. Is féidir leo méadú ollmhór a bhaint amach ar éifeachtúlacht úsáide blocspáis, ach iontas iontas - níor cheart go mbeadh iontas air - tugann siad isteach fiú níos mó comhbhabhtálacha ná Lightning. Nuair a dhéileálann tú le cainéal Lightning, osclaíonn tú é do chontrapháirtí ar leith agus is é sin an t-aon duine ar féidir leat idirghníomhú leis. Chun an duine a bhfuil tú ag idirghníomhú leis a athrú chun bealaí rochtana chuig daoine eile a rochtain, caithfidh tú an cainéal sin a dhúnadh amach ar slabhra agus ceann nua a oscailt le duine eile. Athraíonn Statechains an dinimic atá ann go hiomlán.
Le statechain, is féidir leat boinn a aistriú chuig aon duine nua nár idirghníomhaigh tú riamh leis go hiomlán as slabhra. Ach ní féidir leat ach an UTXO iomlán a aistriú agus tá tríú páirtí eadrána i gceist. Downside uimhir a haon; a luaithe a ghlasann tú bonn i státchain, is féidir an rud ar fad a aistriú as slabhra, ach go léir ag an am céanna. Ar an dara dul síos, is é an bealach iomlán a oibríonn sé ná muinín a bheith agat go bunúsach as tríú páirtí neodrach chun comhoibriú go heisiach leis an úinéir reatha. Is féidir an bealach iarbhír a fhorghníomhú ar slabhra a dhéanamh ar roinnt bealaí éagsúla, ach tá an fada agus gearr go gcruthaíonn an t-úinéir bunaidh statechain trí boinn a ghlasáil suas Lightning-stíl le hoibreoir seirbhíse, agus faigheann idirbheart a tharraingt siar réamh-sínithe go tá sé faoi ghlas ama díreach mar atá i Lightning chun tarraingt siar go haontaobhach. Is é an cleas atá ann ná nuair a bhíonn an “multisig” á socrú agat, úsáideann tú scéim cosúil le Schnorr áit nach bhfuil ach eochair amháin a bhfuil cuid de ag gach páirtí. Tá prótacail cripteagrafacha ann ar féidir a úsáid chun eochracha comhroinnte a athghiniúint ar bhealach a fhágann go bhfoirceannann úsáideoirí comhleanúnacha agus an t-oibreoir seirbhíse scaireanna eochracha éagsúla, arb ionann iad agus an eochair phoiblí chéanna. Nuair a aistríonn tú statechain, téann an seoltóir, an glacadóir agus an t-oibreoir i ngleic le prótacal as slabhra agus scriosann an t-oibreoir a sheanscair don úinéir roimhe sin ionas nach mbeidh siad in ann fiú rud éigin a shíniú i gcomhar leis an úsáideoir sin.
Is comhaontú aontaobhach é Lightning go bunúsach idir dhá úsáideoir inar féidir le ceachtar den dá úsáideoir a fhorfheidhmiú ar slabhra ag am ar bith, chomh fada agus a thugann siad aird ar an blockchain. Ach ní féidir leat rannpháirtithe an chainéil sa chomhaontú sin a athrú gan dul ar slabhra agus na táillí riachtanacha a íoc. Mar gheall ar an gcaoi a n-oibríonn an mheicníocht slándála pionóis (tóg an t-airgead go léir ó dhuine a rinne iarracht dul i ngleic le seanstát), ní féidir leat na comhaontuithe sin a chruthú idir níos mó ná beirt ach an oiread. Tá sé (go praiticiúil, ní literally, mar gheall ar an gcostas ríomhaireachtúil) dodhéanta a dhéanamh amach ar bhealach chun an milleán a shannadh agus pionós a ghearradh ach amháin an páirtí ceart i gcomhaontuithe idir níos mó ná beirt.
Is ionann slabhraí stáit agus an cineál comhaontaithe céanna, ach amháin cinn oscailte ar féidir leo a bheith páirteach iontu, chomh fada agus a bhíonn duine ar bith atá ag iarraidh a bheith toilteanach muinín a bheith aige as an oibreoir seirbhíse, ar cheart a thabhairt faoi deara gur féidir é a chónascadh i measc grúpa, agus gur féidir é a fhorghníomhú go haontaobhach mar. fad is a fhéachann tú ar an blockchain agus go n-iompraíonn an t-oibreoir/na hoibreoirí seirbhíse iad féin go hionraic.
Is é an rud a tharla anseo sa dul chun cinn seo, ó Lightning go Statechain, ná go bhfuil sé indéanta agat do níos mó ná beirt idirghníomhú go sábháilte ar bhealach lasmuigh den slabhra má tá siad sásta muinín a bheith acu as páirtí neodrach chun toradh macánta a fhorfheidhmiú. Mar sin fuarthas go leor inscálaithe don chostas a bhaineann le muinín a thabhairt isteach sa bhreis ar an gceanglas atá ann cheana féin chun fanacht ar líne agus féachaint ar an blockchain.
Cén fáth? Toisc gurb é sin an t-aon bhealach chun an scalability níos mó sin a bhaint amach gan feidhmiúlacht nua a chur leis an blockchain. Cuir muinín sa phictiúr. Mar atá cúrsaí faoi láthair is dócha gur féidir linn go leor scalability a bhaint amach don blockchain gan dul i muinín iomlán faoi choimeád muinín a bheith againn as aonán amháin gan do chuid airgid a ghoid, ach tabharfaidh gach céim a ghlacfaimid i dtreo scalability níos mó isteach níos mó muiníne.
Níl aon bhealach timpeall air sin; ní mór feidhmiúlacht nua a chur leis an blockchain nó ní mór dúinn mar ghrúpa de ghrúpaí éagsúla úsáideoirí glacadh leis gurb é sin an chaoi a rachaidh sé seo. Tá níos mó muiníne ag teacht isteach ar an imill do chásanna úsáide ar luach níos ísle agus úsáideoirí glanfhiúchais níos ísle.
There has been quite a lot of concern and discussion around this entire dynamic this year. The higher the average fee trends for space in a block, the more people will be priced out of using Bitcoin, even when you take into account things like the Lightning Network. Inscriptions and Ordinals caused a massive divide in the more active minority of people in this space, and all of it at the root was centered around the dynamic of one use case potentially raising the fees for blockspace to the point that another use case was priced out of being viable on Bitcoin.
It has been a very illuminating year so far watching people call Taproot a mistake, rally around publicly decrying the incompetence of developers in not realizing what they did, and dig in further into a dogmatic attitude. “Never upgrade or change Bitcoin again because it is perfect and infallible.” These same people in a vast overlap tend to also be the same people championing Bitcoin as a tool for self-sovereignty. They seem to always be the same people preaching self custody as a magic remedy for everything, and when scaling problems get brought up? Oh, Lightning is THE solution to that. Then they point at Ordinals and inscriptions again and start screaming about how one use case will price out another one, and so that bad one has to be stopped.
It is missing the forest for the trees. Any use of bitcoin that is profitable and cost effective to deal with demand is going to happen. There is literally no way to stop that, and Bitcoiners convincing themselves they can are fooling themselves. All of the backlash against Ordinals and Inscriptions very quickly led to people intentionally doing even more costly things like STAMPS, which instead of using witness data that doesn’t have to be stored in the UTXO set, puts their data inside the actual UTXOs. Rather than acknowledging the reality that if people think it is profitable to pay for blockspace they will, many people are falling victim to a knee jerk reaction of trying to stop what they think is bad while completely ignoring the reality that there are other worse ways to accomplish the same thing anyway if it makes economic sense. An impulsive reaction to the rise of Ordinals and Inscriptions is dragging down the entire attention span of involved people in this space into a pit of wasted efforts to stop things causing fee pressure that they don’t agree with instead of considering how to adapt and scale things they do agree with to that fee pressure.
Click the above image to download the PDF.Tá céatadán maith de na daoine atá ag gabháil den chineál seo ag argóint leis an ngaoth. Tá siad ag iarraidh a rá linn stop a bheith ag séideadh mar go bhfuil sé ag cnagadh rudaí in ionad rudaí a cheangal síos nó an bunús a ualú chun é a aimsir. Má chuireann tú bac ar Inscríbhinní nó má dhéanann tú cinsireacht orthu, ní bhainfidh daoine úsáid as ach STAMPAÍ, nó OP_RETURN, nó teicnící níos cur amú acmhainní líonra.
Ultimately no technical filter will be good enough to stop people from doing dumb or non-monetary things with the Bitcoin network. The only filter that will successfully stop anything from being done on Bitcoin is economics. And that filter is equally created and equally affects every use of Bitcoin. It’s time to stop trying to fight externalities driven by economic demand and try to counter them through improving efficiency.
Má cheapann tú Bitcoin’s primary value and purpose is to transfer value, then rather than obsess over somehow stopping all other uses of Bitcoin, you should be focused on considering the trade offs of different mechanisms that can improve its efficiency in transferring value. You are either going to have to choose between progressively adding more trust to things in order to accomplish that, or adding new features to the Bitcoin protocol itself to build more efficient things without depending on trust.
Tá TBDxxx, prótacal dara sraithe nua beartaithe ag Buraq, maraí míchlúiteach Lightning. Go bunúsach is córas mór státshlabhra/ecash ilpháirtí é atá neamhchoimeádta, nach gá muinín a bheith aige as oibreoir na seirbhíse cosúil le statechain, agus is féidir leis go leor úsáideoirí a phacáil isteach i UTXO ar slabhra amháin. Éilíonn sé seo go n-oibreoidh ANYPREVOUT(APO) nó CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY(CTV) chun oibriú, mar sin teastaíonn athrú comhaontaithe uaidh. Is bealach iad monarchana cainéal le UTXO amháin a thógáil agus cainéil Lightning a chruachadh ar bharr a chéile, agus mar sin is féidir le UTXO amháin ionadaíocht a dhéanamh ar an iliomad úsáideoirí a bhfuil cainéal Lightning rialta acu go léir ag an mbarr. Éilíonn sé seo AN AON BHLIAIN Amach.
Both of these proposals can scale the use of Bitcoin to transfer value much further than Lightning can now, but ultimately both of them are subject to the same economic fee pressure that Lightning and on-chain use are. To join one of these multiparty channel pools, or exit one, or enforce something non-cooperatively on chain you still have to pay fees. For something like a channel factory this will involve one person who needs to close or enforce something actually unfurling and closing (fully or partially) the entire channel factory with everyone in it, creating costs and on-chain implications for everyone. Even despite accomplishing a huge increase in scalability without trust, it still falls victim to the effects of the blockspace market maturing.
Chun é sin a mhaolú (gan é a réiteach), is dócha go mbeidh níos mó cóid OP de dhíth orainn. Rudaí ar nós OP_EVICT nó TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY. Ligeann OP_EVICT do ghrúpa ball neamh-chomhoibríoch a chiceáil le chéile as cainéal ilpháirtí gan dúnadh ná cur isteach ar aon duine eile ann ag baint úsáide as idirbheart amháin le hionchur amháin agus dhá aschur. Ní réitíonn sé seo an cheist, ach déanann sé i bhfad níos éifeachtaí é trí ligean do dhuine amháin a bheith díshealbhaithe le lorg slabhra i bhfad níos lú. Déanann TLUV an rud céanna ach amháin in ionad gach duine eile a chiceáil amach, ligeann sé d'úsáideoir aonair a gcuid cistí go léir a tharraingt siar gan cur isteach ar aon duine eile nó gan a bheith ag teastáil ó aon duine eile comhoibriú.
To address more of the issues, we need to make more changes to Bitcoin. There’s no way around that. Taproot “opened the door” to Inscriptions in the sense that it relaxed limits enough for people to go nuts with it, but they were already possible before Taproot. You can look at Taproot as having provided efficiency gains for both monetary use cases as well as non-monetary use cases. It made multisig the same size as a regular single sig address, which helps make using a higher security set up for keys or second layer protocols cheaper, but it also made it cheaper to inscribe arbitrary data.
Two sides of the same coin. And that is how it is. Same as it ever was. Making use of the blockchain more efficient is not always going to improve solely the use case you want, but it is absolutely necessary to scale Bitcoin in a way that is self-sovereign and self-custodial. It’s time to either accept that and start considering the reality of finding the optimal efficiency gains for value transfer with the least efficiency gains for detrimental or non-value transfer uses, or it’s time to accept that the only way to scale value transfer is to introduce trust.
A good number of people in this space have already made their choice one way or another, but there is a large contingent of people in the middle who refuse to accept either. This loud group in the middle needs to wake up and smell the coffee, and accept the reality of the situation. This is how blockchains work. Pick one; either brace yourself to accept the injection of trust into things, or accept the reality that changes need to happen. You can tell yourself all day long that you don’t have to choose, but your actions in attacking the notion of any change to Bitcoin at all while simultaneously championing self-custodial Bitcoin as a solution for the world are implicitly making the choice to accept more trust being introduced into the system, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
Tá an t-alt seo le feiceáil i Bitcoin Irisí “An tSaincheist Aistarraingthe”. Cliceáil anseo chun liostáil anois.
Tá paimfléad PDF den alt seo ar fáil le haghaidh íoslódáil.
Foinse bunaidh: Bitcoin Magazine