By Bitcoin 雜誌 - 4 個月前 - 閱讀時間：5 分鐘
傑文斯悖論：它的實際意義是什麼 Bitcoin
From an economic standpoint, 傑文悖論 is arguably the foundation of the scaling road we have started walking down for Bitcoin. Pushing things off-chain is attempting to make the use of the scarce resource that blockspace is much more efficient to accommodate a materially larger user base than the blockchain can facilitate on its own. Jevon’s Paradox states that in the presence of elastic demand for something, when the efficiency of using that thing increases, i.e. the cost per use decreases, the aggregate demand for that thing among participants will increase.
給出的典型例子是汽車的燃油效率。如果汽車的汽油使用效率突然提高一倍，人們就會多出行，因為出行成本會減少一半。由於個人成本降低，人們出行更加頻繁，燃料需求的淨增長可能超過實現效率提升之前的原始燃料總需求。這就是悖論發生的地方，總需求超過了該東西的使用效率之前的水平。
這就是為什麼第二層是可行的解決方案背後的整個經濟思維。在區塊大小戰爭期間，來自大區塊者的巨大爭論之一是，脫鏈本質上會從礦工那裡竊取資金，並破壞在遙遠的未來純粹靠交易費生存的礦工的博弈論穩定性。他們在這些辯論中完全忽視了傑文悖論，而且直到今天他們中的許多人仍然完全忽視了這一動態。
爭論
相反的論點（至少是有效的）是，效率提高後的需求反彈並不總是超過效率提高之前的總需求。在許多情況下，它仍然幾乎反彈到原來的水平，但並沒有超過它。這歸結為最終決定生產某物成本的投入。以燃油為例，現實情況是，燃油成本並不是影響人們駕車出行的唯一因素。生產汽車的成本，即生產所需的勞動力、材料、能源等，以及汽車本身的最終成本也被考慮在內。這些因素通常會抑制需求的反彈，使其無法超過效率提高先前的水平。
這是關於 Bitcoin though: the cost to produce a block is the only factor of “input costs” in producing blockspace. The 實 更重要的是，無論輸入成本發生什麼變化，可用的區塊空間量 平均保持完全相同. This is the entire novelty and value of the difficulty adjustment in Bitcoin, no matter what the price and net hashrate do, the network circles around this Schelling point of the same average amount of blockspace available. The only way that will change is a consensus change to alter the blocksize, or block interval, or other such core variables that will have an impact on the amount of space available.
Therefore the only real factor to consider when applying Jevon’s Paradox to Bitcoin, is how efficiently can users make use of that existing blockspace. One person owning a UTXO on their own and directly transacting on-chain can be seen as a baseline. Lightning, allowing two people to share a single UTXO and conduct numerous transactions off-chain before settling them on-chain, is the first major efficiency gain. After Lightning, something like Ark or a channel factory would be the next level of efficiency gain. In all of these cases, there are no extraneous factors to consider. If you have Bitcoin, and the ability to use that Bitcoin gets cheaper and cheaper, you are more likely to put that Bitcoin to actual use. There are no extra barriers to Bitcoin other than having the Bitcoin. You don’t HAVE to buy a super expensive hardware device to use it, it might be best security practices to do so if you have a large sum of money, but it is not necessary.
在我看來，序號和 BRC-20 代幣在某種程度上證明了這一點。將 jpeg 推入區塊鏈（相對於區塊大小限制來說是相當大的資料）是對區塊空間的非常低效的使用。 BRC-20 令牌只是微小的 JSON blob，相對於 jpeg 來說相對有效率。其中哪一件事情真正推動了區塊空間的需求，從而推高了最近的費用？ BRC-20 令牌，而不是 jpeg。
無論如何它都會發生
在我看來，殘酷的現實是，區塊空間的使用將變得更加高效，無論我們做什麼，我們都將看到傑文悖論在該區塊空間市場上發揮作用。如果直接使用區塊空間對於用戶交易來說變得太昂貴，他們會找到方法將其抽象化。他們不需要契約，或一般的分叉，或是我們在第二層上建構的任何東西來做到這一點。
保管人。
他們所需要的只是監護人。更有效地使用區塊空間歸結為一件事：人們彼此分享他們的 UTXO。他們如何做到這一點的信任模式，他們是否可以在未經許可的情況下單方面收回資金，他們必須與誰互動才能提取資金，所有這些都與傑文的悖論完全無關。
If blockspace gets too expensive for people, they will stop using it. Demand will drop off, if not in aggregate, then for a class of users. Unless they want to just entirely stop using Bitcoin, they will seek out more efficient ways to use Bitcoin (which inherently requires using blockspace, no matter how abstracted that use is). The only truly scalable way to do this in the long term right now is through custodians.
That means without actually addressing the problem of “what does Bitcoin need to scale in a self custodial way” we are essentially implicitly admitting that the economic incentives of how this system works inherently forces people into custodial platforms and mechanisms for making use of their Bitcoin. To deny that is to deny the realities of what makes Bitcoin work: economics and incentives.
It has been argued quite a lot recently that “spam filtering” is simply another way for Jevon’s Paradox to occur. It is not, and it has no relationship to Jevon's Paradox at all. Stopping a particular use case from competing with another is not increasing the efficiency of the other use case, it is simply trying to distort and manipulate the market of them both competing for the same resource. That argument fails to understand what Jevon’s Paradox actually is. It doesn’t care about one use case versus another, or which uses are “legitimate”; it is completely agnostic to specific use cases of a resource. It simply speaks to 任何 資源變得更有效率的用例，在沒有未說明的投入成本的情況下，效率增益的結果將取決於該特定用例使用該資源的總需求。
如果我們是對的，那麼無論我們做什麼，事情都會順利進行。我們對這一切的唯一影響是區塊空間使用中任何效率增益的信任模型是什麼，我們無法控制這些效率增益是否會發生。
原始來源： Bitcoin 雜誌