By Bitcoin 杂志 - 6 个月前 - 阅读时间：15 分钟
双面硬币控制
这篇文章收录在 Bitcoin 杂志 “提款问题”。 立即点击这里订阅.
本文的 PDF 小册子可用于 下载.
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 本身。
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.
实现这两个目标的所有具体方式都涉及很多权衡。 很多。 即使是闪电协议，尽管其背后有所有的工程才华，可以使交易吞吐量呈指数级增长，但也存在巨大的权衡和限制。 就吞吐量与不信任性而言，它是迄今为止最具可扩展性的，同时也是迄今为止提出的最不信任的第二层协议。 但即使它也有缺点和根本差异。
点击上面的图片即可订阅。闪电网络的安全模型是反应性的，这意味着确保您不损失金钱的唯一方法是关注 blockchain 如果有人试图通过向链提交旧的通道状态来窃取您的资金，请快速做出反应。虽然这是解决该问题的一个完美可行的解决方案，但它与单方面持有 UTXO 的安全模型有很大的不同。在这种情况下，您所要做的就是验证链上发送给您的代币是否确实得到确认，然后就完成了。此后您无需持续关注任何事情即可确保您的资金安全。
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.
同样的动态也会影响到用户是否可以首先打开和维护闪电通道（或者其他人是否愿意向该通道分配流动性，以便用户拥有接收能力）。 如果链上交易的成本为 10 美元，那么您将立即为打开和不可避免地关闭该通道支付 20 美元（假设费率不会变得更糟）。 如果您必须非合作关闭，即使没有 HTLC 在飞行，费用也为 30 美元，因为关闭需要两笔交易。 人们需要在渠道中投入多少钱才能认为高额费用值得？ 当区块空间需求饱和时，费用真正开始永久增长，事情就会开始变得非常排他性。
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.
什么具体和部署的替代方案可以提高它？ 状态链就是一个具体的例子。 它们可以大幅提高区块空间的使用效率，但令人惊讶的是——这不应该是一个惊喜——它们引入了比闪电网络更多的权衡。 当您处理闪电通道时，您将其开放给特定的交易对手，这是您唯一可以与之交互的人。 为了更改与您交互的人以访问其他人的路线，您实际上必须关闭链上的该通道并与其他人打开一个新通道。 状态链彻底改变了那里的动态。
通过状态链，您可以将代币转移给任何您以前从未与完全链下互动过的新人。 但你只能转移整个 UTXO，并且涉及第三方仲裁方。 第一个缺点； 一旦你将一枚代币锁定到状态链中，整个事情就可以转移到链外，但只能一次性转移。 其次，它的整个运作方式本质上是信任一个中立的第三方与当前所有者独家合作。 其在链上执行的实际方式可以通过几种不同的方式来完成，但长短是，原始所有者通过与服务运营商锁定闪电式代币来创建状态链，并获得预签名的提款交易就像闪电网络一样，有时间限制单方面退出。 诀窍是在设置“多重签名”时，您可以使用像 Schnorr 这样的方案，其中只有一个密钥，各方都拥有该密钥。 有一些加密协议可用于重新生成共享密钥，以便连续的用户和服务运营商最终获得不同的密钥共享，等于相同的公钥。 当您转移状态链时，发送者、接收者和运营商会参与链下协议，并且运营商会删除前所有者的旧份额，因此他们甚至无法与该用户合作签署某些内容。
闪电网络本质上是两个用户之间的单边协议，只要他们关注区块链，任何一个用户都可以随时在链上执行。 但如果不上链并支付必要的费用，您就无法更改该协议中的渠道参与者。 由于惩罚安全机制的工作原理（从试图欺骗旧状态的人那里拿走所有的钱），你也不能在两个以上的人之间创建这些协议。 （实际上，不是字面意思，因为计算成本）不可能找到一种方法来分配责任并仅惩罚两个以上协议中正确的一方。
状态链是同一类型的协议，除了开放式的协议，只要任何愿意的人都愿意信任服务运营商，就可以参与其中，值得注意的是，它可以在一个群体中联合起来，并且可以单方面强制执行只要您观察区块链和服务运营商的诚实行为。
从闪电网络到状态链，在这个过程中发生的事情是，如果两个以上的人愿意信任中立方来执行诚实的结果，那么他们就可以以链下方式安全地进行交互。 因此，除了现有的保持在线和观看区块链的要求之外，引入信任的成本获得了很大的可扩展性。
为什么？ 因为这确实是在不向区块链添加新功能的情况下实现更大可扩展性的唯一方法。 为图片添加信任。 就目前情况而言，我们可能可以实现区块链的相当大的可扩展性，而无需诉诸完全托管，信任单个实体不会窃取您的资金，但我们为实现更大的可扩展性而采取的每一步都将引入更多的信任。
这是没有办法解决的； 要么需要向区块链添加新功能，要么我们作为不同用户组的集体需要接受这就是事情的发展方向。 对于低价值用例和低净值用户，更多的信任在边缘蔓延。
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.
点击上图即可下载 PDF.像这样参与的人中有很大一部分实际上是在与风争论。 他们试图告诉我们停止吹气，因为吹气会把东西打翻，而不是把东西绑起来或加重地基来抵御风吹雨打。 如果你成功阻止或审查铭文，人们只会使用 STAMPS 或 OP_RETURN 或更浪费网络资源的技术。
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.
如果您认为 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，臭名昭著的闪电杀手，最近提出了 TBDxxx，一种新的第二层协议。 它本质上是一个大型多方状态链/电子现金系统，是非托管的，不需要像状态链那样信任服务运营商，并且可以将许多用户打包到单个链上 UTXO 中。 这需要 ANYPREVOUT(APO) 或 CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY(CTV) 才能工作，因此需要达成共识更改。 通道工厂是一种采用单个 UTXO 并将闪电通道堆叠在一起的方法，因此一个 UTXO 可以代表数十个在顶部都有常规闪电通道的用户。 这也需要 ANYPREVOUT。
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.
为了减轻（而不是解决）这个问题，我们可能需要更多的操作代码。 诸如 OP_EVICT 或 TAPLEAFPDATEVERIFY 之类的东西。 OP_EVICT 允许一个群体使用具有一个输入和两个输出的单个事务集体将不合作成员踢出多方通道，而不会关闭或影响其中的其他任何人。 这并不能解决问题，但它允许一个人以更小的链上足迹被驱逐，从而提高了效率。 TLUV 完成了同样的事情，只是它允许单个用户在不干扰其他人或不需要其他人合作的情况下提取所有资金，而不是其他人将某人踢出去。
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.
这篇文章收录在 Bitcoin 杂志 “提款问题”。 立即点击这里订阅.
本文的 PDF 小册子可用于 下载.
原始来源： Bitcoin 杂志