By Bitcoin Jurnal - 6 oy oldin - O'qish vaqti: 15 daqiqa
Ikki tomonlama tanga nazorati
Ushbu maqolada ko'rsatilgan Bitcoin Jurnal "O'chirish muammosi". Hozir obuna bo'lish uchun shu yerni bosing.
Ushbu maqolaning PDF risolasi mavjud download.
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 o'zi.
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.
Va bu maqsadlardan biriga erishish mumkin bo'lgan barcha aniq usullarda juda ko'p savdo-sotiqlar mavjud. Ko'p. Hatto Lightning protokoli ham, uning orqasida barcha muhandislik yorqinligi bor, tranzaksiya o'tkazuvchanligining eksponentsial o'sishini ta'minlagan holda, katta farqlar va cheklovlar mavjud. Bu eng kengaytiriladigan va ayni paytda ishonchlilik va o'tkazuvchanlik nuqtai nazaridan hozirgacha taklif qilingan eng ishonchli ikkinchi qatlam protokoli hisoblanadi. Ammo uning kamchiliklari va asosiy farqlari ham bor.
Obuna bo'lish uchun yuqoridagi rasmni bosing.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.
Xuddi shu dinamika, birinchi navbatda, foydalanuvchi hatto Lightning kanalini ochishi va unga xizmat ko'rsatishi mumkinmi yoki yo'qmi (yoki kimdir foydalanuvchi qabul qilish qobiliyatiga ega bo'lishi uchun ushbu kanalga likvidlikni ajratishni xohlaydimi) bilan bog'liq. Agar zanjirda tranzaksiya qilish 10 dollarga tushadigan bo'lsa, u holda kanalni ochish va muqarrar ravishda yopib qo'yish uchun siz darhol 20 dollarga - to'lov stavkalari bundan ham yomonroq bo'lmasa-da. Agar siz hamkorliksiz yopilishingiz kerak bo'lsa, hatto parvozda hech qanday HTLC bo'lmasa ham, bu 30 dollarni tashkil qiladi, chunki bu yopilish ikkita tranzaktsiyani oladi. To'lovlarni hisobga olish uchun odamlar kanalga qancha pul qo'yishlari kerak? Blok maydoni talabi to'yinganida, to'lovlar haqiqatan ham o'sishni boshlaganda, narsalar juda tez eksklyuziv bo'la boshlaydi.
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.
Qaysi aniq va o'rnatilgan alternativa uni yuqoriga ko'tarishi mumkin? Davlat zanjirlari aniq misoldir. Ular blok maydonidan foydalanish samaradorligini sezilarli darajada oshirishi mumkin, ammo ajablantiradigan narsa - bu ajablanarli bo'lmasligi kerak - ular Lightning-ga qaraganda ko'proq savdo-sotiqni kiritadilar. Lightning kanali bilan shug'ullanganingizda, uni ma'lum bir kontragentga ochasiz va u bilan muloqot qilishingiz mumkin bo'lgan yagona odam. O'zaro aloqada bo'lgan odamni boshqa odamlarga marshrutga kirishga o'zgartirish uchun siz aslida ushbu kanalni zanjirdan yopishingiz va boshqa birov bilan yangisini ochishingiz kerak. Statechains u erda dinamikani butunlay o'zgartiradi.
Shtat zanjiri yordamida siz tangalarni zanjirdan butunlay tashqarida ilgari hech qachon aloqada bo'lmagan har qanday yangi odamga o'tkazishingiz mumkin. Ammo siz faqat butun UTXO ni o'tkazishingiz mumkin va uchinchi hakamlik tomon ishtirok etadi. Salbiy tomoni birinchi; tangani davlat zanjiriga qulflaganingizdan so'ng, hamma narsa zanjirdan tashqariga o'tkazilishi mumkin, lekin barchasi bir vaqtning o'zida. Ikkinchidan, uning butun ishlash usuli, asosan, hozirgi egasi bilan faqat hamkorlik qilish uchun neytral uchinchi tomonga ishonishdir. Zanjirda amalga oshirishning haqiqiy usuli bir necha xil usullar bilan amalga oshirilishi mumkin, ammo uzoq va qisqasi shundaki, asl egasi xizmat ko'rsatuvchi operator bilan Lightning uslubidagi tangalarni qulflash orqali davlat zanjirini yaratadi va oldindan imzolangan pul olish operatsiyasini oladi. xuddi Lightningdagi kabi bir tomonlama chekinish uchun vaqt bloklanadi. Ayyorlik shundaki, "multisig" ni o'rnatishda siz Schnorr kabi sxemadan foydalanasiz, bu erda har bir tomonning bir qismi bo'lgan bitta kalit mavjud. Birgalikda kalitlarni qayta tiklash uchun ishlatilishi mumkin bo'lgan kriptografik protokollar mavjud bo'lib, ular ketma-ket foydalanuvchilar va xizmat ko'rsatish operatori bir xil ochiq kalitga teng keladigan turli xil kalit ulushlariga ega bo'lishadi. Davlat zanjirini o'tkazganingizda, jo'natuvchi, qabul qiluvchi va operator zanjirdan tashqari protokolga kirishadi va operator avvalgi egasi uchun eski ulushini o'chirib tashlaydi, shuning uchun ular hatto ushbu foydalanuvchi bilan hamkorlikda biror narsa imzolashga qodir emaslar.
Yildirim asosan ikki foydalanuvchi o'rtasidagi bir tomonlama kelishuv bo'lib, ular blokcheynga e'tibor berishlari sharti bilan istalgan vaqtda zanjirni qo'llashlari mumkin. Lekin siz ushbu shartnomadagi kanal ishtirokchilarini zanjirga kirmasdan va kerakli to'lovlarni to'lamasdan o'zgartira olmaysiz. Jazoni himoya qilish mexanizmi qanday ishlashi tufayli (eski davlat bilan aldamoqchi bo'lgan odamdan barcha pullarni oling), siz ikkidan ortiq kishi o'rtasida ham ushbu shartnomalarni tuza olmaysiz. Ikki kishidan ortiq kishilar o'rtasidagi kelishuvlarda aybni belgilash va faqat to'g'ri tomonni jazolash yo'lini aniqlash (amalda, tom ma'noda emas, hisob-kitob qiymati tufayli) mumkin emas.
Statechains - bu bir xil turdagi shartnomalar, ochiq bitimlar bundan mustasno, agar bo'lishni istagan har bir kishi xizmat ko'rsatuvchi operatorga ishonishga tayyor bo'lsa, uni bir guruh o'rtasida federatsiya qilish mumkin va bir tomonlama ravishda amalga oshirilishi mumkin. Agar siz blokcheyn va xizmat ko'rsatuvchi operator(lar) o'zini halol tutishlarini kuzatsangiz.
Lightning-dan Statechaingacha bo'lgan bu jarayonda nima sodir bo'ldi, siz ikkidan ortiq odamlarga halol natijani qo'llash uchun neytral partiyaga ishonishga tayyor bo'lsa, zanjirdan tashqari xavfsiz o'zaro aloqada bo'lish imkonini yaratdingiz. Shunday qilib, onlayn qolish va blokcheynni tomosha qilish uchun allaqachon mavjud bo'lgan talabdan tashqari, ishonchni joriy qilish xarajati uchun katta hajmga ega bo'ldi.
Nega? Chunki bu blockchain-ga yangi funksiyalarni qo‘shmasdan katta hajmlilikka erishishning yagona yo‘li. Rasmga ishonchni qo'shing. Vaziyat mavjud bo'lsa, biz blokcheynni to'liq qo'llab-quvvatlamasdan turib, pulingizni o'g'irlamaslikka ishonib, blokcheynning keng ko'lamli imkoniyatlariga erisha olamiz, ammo kattaroq miqyoslilik sari qilgan har bir qadamimiz ishonchni oshiradi.
Bunga hech qanday yo'l yo'q; yoki blokcheynga yangi funksiya qo'shilishi kerak yoki biz turli foydalanuvchilar guruhlari jamoasi sifatida bu shunday bo'lishini qabul qilishimiz kerak. Kamroq qiymatli foydalanish holatlari va sof daromadi past foydalanuvchilar uchun chekkada ko'proq ishonch paydo bo'ladi.
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.Bu kabi shug'ullanadigan odamlarning yaxshi foizi tom ma'noda shamol bilan bahslashmoqda. Ular bizga zarba berishni to'xtatishni aytishga harakat qilmoqdalar, chunki u narsalarni bog'lash yoki poydevorni og'irlashtirish o'rniga narsalarni yiqitadi. Agar siz Yozuvlarni muvaffaqiyatli bloklasangiz yoki tsenzura qilsangiz, odamlar STAMPS yoki OP_RETURN yoki tarmoq resurslarini isrof qiladigan usullardan foydalanishadi.
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.
Sizningcha bo'lsa 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.
Buraq, yashinning shafqatsiz qotili yaqinda yangi ikkinchi qatlam protokoli TBDxxx ni taklif qildi. Bu, asosan, hibsga olinmaydigan, davlat zanjiri kabi xizmat ko'rsatuvchi operatorga ishonishni talab qilmaydigan va ko'plab foydalanuvchilarni bitta zanjirli UTXOga to'plashi mumkin bo'lgan katta ko'p partiyali davlat zanjiri/pul tizimidir. Buning ishlashi uchun ANYPREVOUT(APO) yoki CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY(CTV) talab qilinadi, shuning uchun u konsensusni o‘zgartirishi kerak. Kanal zavodlari bitta UTXOni olish va Lightning kanallarini bir-birining ustiga qo'yish usulidir, shuning uchun bitta UTXO yuqori qismida oddiy Lightning kanaliga ega bo'lgan o'nlab foydalanuvchilarni ifodalashi mumkin. Buning uchun ANYPREVOUT ham talab qilinadi.
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.
Buni engillashtirish (hal qilmaslik) uchun bizga ko'proq OP kodlari kerak bo'ladi. OP_EVICT yoki TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY kabi narsalar. OP_EVICT guruhga bitta kirish va ikkita chiqish bilan bitta tranzaksiyadan foydalangan holda kooperativ bo'lmagan a'zoni ko'p partiyaviy kanaldan yopib qo'ymasdan yoki boshqa hech kimga ta'sir qilmasdan birgalikda chiqarib yuborish imkonini beradi. Bu muammoni hal qilmaydi, lekin u bir odamni zanjirda ancha kichikroq iz bilan haydab chiqarishga imkon berish orqali uni ancha samarali qiladi. TLUV xuddi shu narsani amalga oshiradi, bundan mustasno, boshqalar kimnidir haydab chiqarish o'rniga, u bitta foydalanuvchiga boshqa hech kimni buzmasdan yoki boshqa birovning hamkorlik qilishiga muhtoj bo'lmasdan barcha mablag'larini olib qo'yish imkonini beradi.
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.
Ushbu maqolada ko'rsatilgan Bitcoin Jurnal "O'chirish muammosi". Hozir obuna bo'lish uchun shu yerni bosing.
Ushbu maqolaning PDF risolasi mavjud download.
Asl manba: Bitcoin jurnal