By Bitcoin Magazine - 3개월 전 - 읽는 시간: 8분
Bitcoin의 미래는 부분 준비금입니다: 우리가 뭔가를 하지 않는 한
Satoshi에서 Hal Finney까지 단일 거래로 시작된 것은 산업 규모의 채굴자의 복잡한 시스템으로 발전했으며 Lightning Network 및 Fedimint와 같은 메타 프로토콜을 발전시켰으며 기록적인 신규 승인 유입으로 기관 투자자를 완전히 포용했습니다. 현물 ETF.
Bitcoin has come a dramatically long way, and with that comes a somewhat earned sense of optimism for those who have invested their time, money, and enthusiasm.
Unfortunately this optimism, and sense of “inevitability” I have previously written on, has contributed to a culture of complacency. This is hallmarked by a narrative that early Bitcoin protocol ossification is acceptable or even desirable, itself underscored by the implicit assumption that the largest risks to Bitcoin now are potential changes and Trojan horses to the protocol.
이 믿음은 명백히 거짓입니다.
The greatest danger to Bitcoin is the certain future it has if it were in fact to effectively “ossify” today: Certain regulatory capture, an uncapped fractional reserve supply, and censored and monitored transactions.
오래된 뉴스
If that sounds extreme, then you haven’t been paying attention. The problems facing Bitcoin that lead to this inevitable result aren’t remotely new. In fact it was touched on by Hal Finney himself 14 years ago:
“Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin- 지원 은행이 존재하기 위해 자체 디지털 현금 통화를 발행하고 상환 가능 bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain…
Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems…
다리 Bitcoin 순이체를 결제하기 위해 은행 간에 거래가 발생합니다. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as… well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.”
From the very beginning, many of Bitcoin’s earliest adopters clearly understood its limitations and the resulting downstream implications. What has changed since then? Not the math.
Even with the Lightning Network, an innovation that Hal Finney would not be around to see, the upper limit for the number of regular users Bitcoin can onboard in its current state is optimistically 100 million. That number does not factor in usability/user experience whatsoever, which is an inherent challenge of the Lightning Network due to the very novel way in which it works compared to any other financial system.
라이트닝 네트워크 백서 자체에서 저자 Joseph Poon과 Thaddeus Dryja는 이것만으로는 글로벌 규모를 가능하게 하는 어떤 종류의 만능책도 아니라는 점을 분명히 밝혔습니다.
“If all transactions using Bitcoin were conducted inside a network of micropayment channels, to enable 7 billion people to make two channels per year with unlimited transactions inside the channel, it would require 133 MB blocks (presuming 500 bytes per transaction and 52560 blocks per year)”
The resulting cap on users who can leverage Bitcoin today in a self sovereign way without the use of a trusted 3rd party presents an obvious problem. Especially if we assume adoption and usage will continue to grow.
Saifdean Ammous authored “The Bitcoin Standard”, a book which received much fanfare for making the compelling economic case for Bitcoin as the ultimate manifestation of “hard money”. A Bitcoin standard, he argues, will out-compete the current fiat money system by virtue of its hard supply. Similarly, in 2014 Pierre Rochard popularized the idea of the “speculative attack”, arguing that the adoption of the bitcoin monetary unit would happen first gradually, then extremely rapidly.
In our projection of the future, we will assume both lines of thinking are correct, and that demand for bitcoin the monetary unit will attract an increasing amount of savings as its network effects only further accelerate its own widespread global adoption.
This “hyperbitcoinization” scenario however presents an impossible challenge for the current constraints of both the Bitcoin core protocol and Lightning Network. What will it mean then when hundreds of millions, and then billions, flee into the confidence of Bitcoin’s fixed supply as the mainstream Bitcoin community believes they will?
아주 간단하게, 그들이 할 수 없다면 여유 엄격한 확장성 제한으로 인해 핵심 프로토콜이나 라이트닝 네트워크(여기서 사용 편의성이나 UX에 대해 논의할 필요도 없으며 이는 별도의 큰 과제임)를 사용하려면 중앙 집중식 관리 서비스 제공자를 사용해야 합니다.. 그들이 원하지 않더라도.
이 덤불 주위에는 두들겨 패거나 그것을 바라는 것이 없습니다.
If you accept the premise of bitcoin as a superior money, and also understand the practical limitations of the protocol today, then this is the certain outcome Bitcoin is currently on track to reach.
골드 스탠다드 2.0
이것이 왜 문제를 일으킬 수 있는지 묻는 것은 공정한 질문입니다. Hal Finney는 앞서 언급한 자신의 게시물에서 확실히 그렇게 암시하지 않은 것 같습니다.
다시 Bitcoin Standard, Ammous dedicates a significant amount of the book’s opening chapters to discussing the history of the gold standard, its strengths, and most importantly its weaknesses. Crucially he identifies the Achilles heel: Gold was simply too expensive to secure and difficult to transact with in meaningful quantities.
그 결과 종이화폐 기술은 최초로 금에 대한 편리한 차용증서로 사용되기 시작했으며, 필요에 따라 대량의 금을 보호하고 이동하는 작업에 특화된 중앙 집중식 위치에 보관되었습니다. 시간이 지남에 따라 기술이 향상되고 상업이 더욱 글로벌화됨에 따라 이러한 중앙 집중식 관리인은 계속해서 성장했습니다. 결국 규제 권한을 통해 국가에 의해 모두 포획되고 나중에는 기본 금 지원에서 새로운 법정화폐가 완전히 분리될 때까지 계속되었습니다.
In projecting the future for Bitcoin in its current state, we can see a very similar outcome unfolding. There might not be a cost issue with the 저장 of bitcoin using private keys and mnemonic phrases, but in our hyperbitcoinization scenario the ability to 거래하다 with self custodied bitcoin quickly evaporates for all but the institutions and the super wealthy who can afford the fees, even when using Lightning.
결과는 금본위제 하에서와 거의 동일합니다. Coinbase 또는 Cashapp과 같은 플랫폼은 관리 플랫폼 내의 거래가 중앙 데이터베이스에서 추적되기 때문에 한계 비용이 20이라는 점을 고려하여 중심 무대를 차지할 것입니다. 크로스 플랫폼 결제는 라이트닝 채널 또는 온체인 결제를 통해 매우 비용 효율적으로 이러한 플랫폼 간에 집계될 수도 있습니다. 그 결과, 국가가 사소하게 영향을 미치고, 강요하고, 포획할 수 있는 대규모 관리 기관이 대부분의 공급을 보유하는 XNUMX세기 초의 금본위제 상태와 크게 다르지 않은 상황이 되었습니다.
To return to the question of the biggest threat to Bitcoin: In this future, there’s zero necessity in attacking the base layer if the only ones that can actually use it are large known entities with everything to lose.
To be sure, substantial differences from the original gold standard would in fact exist. Transactions being natively digital, proof of reserves being possible, and the supply being completely transparent are notable improvements over the gold standard. Still, none of these differences impact our self custody conundrum in any way. As far as the vision of Bitcoin being a censorship resistant money, once the vast majority is held by trusted third parties, there is nothing stopping States from strictly enforcing transaction monitoring, asset seizures, and capital controls. There is also nothing stopping them from enabling and even encouraging fractional reserve policies in the interest of prudent economic management.
결정적으로 이러한 조치가 발생하는 경우 대다수의 사용자는 자신의 관리하에 자금을 인출하여 탈퇴할 수 없습니다.
It’s not all bad. In this scenario, bitcoin the monetary unit still appreciates by leaps and bounds. Everyone who’s humored me this far with their attention will still likely stand to financially benefit immensely in this future.
하지만 그게 다야?
Is the vision of Bitcoin as a foundational tool for censorship resistance, and separating money and State, dead?
우리가 현재의 궤적을 계속 거부하거나 더 나쁘게 장려한다면 그것이 사실이라는 데는 의심의 여지가 없습니다. 하지만 꼭 그럴 필요는 없습니다.
잘못된 두려움
Fortunately, there’s no reason or prevailing argument for the Bitcoin network to have already ossified. It remains firmly within the grasp of the core community to continue to push forward research, debate, and proposals for further improving the base protocol to increase the scale and usability of solutions like the Lightning Network, as well as enable whole new potential constructs such as the Ark protocol, advanced statechains, and more.
그러나 "골화"가 중요한 문제가 되는 지점에 어떻게 도달했는지 인정하는 것이 중요합니다. 처방 적 순수한 이야기보다는 서술적인 idea of the eventual end state of a widely adopted Bitcoin protocol. Such a prescription is necessarily rooted in the assumption that Bitcoin’s largest attack vector comes from future code changes.
This line of thinking isn’t baseless. It is true that protocol changes can be an attack vector. After all, we’ve actually seen that very attack play out before with Segwit2X when a consortium of large Bitcoin institutions and miners coordinated a unilateral hard fork to the Bitcoin protocol to increase the base block size in 2017.
However we must also acknowledge that Segwit2x failed in a miserable fashion. Worse still, the futility of the attack was obvious before its eventual collapse as it entirely misjudged the dynamics involved in introducing changes to a distributed peer to peer protocol.
The participation of many of the individuals and companies involved with Segwit2X suffered lasting reputational damage in many cases, making it not only a failed effort, but a costly one. For any enterprising attacker looking to compromise Bitcoin for good, it would be abundantly clear that attempting to repeat this approach or any variation of it is a fool's errand.
A much easier and cheaper approach with a much higher likelihood of success, would be to invest in slowing the already challenging work of building consensus to introduce beneficial extensions to the Bitcoin protocol, ensuring that the experiment in both sound and censorship resistant money is ultimately a victim of its own success. Whether or not you believe this is actively happening today, the actions that need to be taken are identical.
이제 어쩌지?
Ultimately, where we are now and what we must do is not so different from the time Hal made his observation in 2009: We must continue critically examining the limitations of the Bitcoin protocol and ecosystem, and push forward as a community to address these shortcomings.
Thankfully a number of research advancements and proposals have been made for further increasing scalability that don’t require larger block sizes. Bitcoin core contributor James O’Beirne released a 블로그 게시물 last year with a sober technical analysis of Bitcoin’s immediate scalability prospects and gives good context to some of these proposals, and more recently Mutiny wallet developer Ben Carman has taken a critical look at the issues surrounding the Lightning Network 더 구체적으로.
There has never ceased to be a strong signal amidst all the noise, and the best we can do is put in the individual work to identify and amplify it, while actively pushing back against counter productive narratives that do not contribute to meaningfully improving Bitcoin.
그렇게 함으로써 아마도 우리는 진정한 P2P 및 주권 화폐에 대한 비전을 지구상의 모든 개인에게 확대할 수 있는 방법을 찾을 수 있을 것입니다.
우리는 여전히 부족할 수 있으며 보장할 수 없습니다.
하지만 시도해 볼 가치가 있습니다.
이것은 Ariel의 게스트 게시물입니다. 데샤펠. 표현 된 의견은 전적으로 자신의 것이며 BTC Inc 또는 Bitcoin 매거진.