By Bitcoin 雜誌 - 3 個月前 - 閱讀時間：7 分鐘
到模因，還是不到模因：貓
鑑於貓在過去二十年中基本上主導了互聯網，貓模因最終接管了互聯網，這真的很令人驚訝嗎？ Bitcoin space as well in the last few weeks? Cats are the most viral meme on the internet, so it's not shocking in the least bit that the Taproot Wizards have leaned into it, reinforced by the trolling Luke over his “dietary choices.”
The question has to be asked though, are meme campaigns really how we want to go about deciding and discussing consensus changes to a protocol as valuable as Bitcoin? I’ve seen numerous music videos, campaigns to go out in the world and “educate” people on OP_CAT, and the whole “Quest” system that Taproot Wizards has launched taking place…but the reality is the vast majority of this content that I have seen has been incredibly superficial.
Rijndael 是 Taproot Wizards 的“Artificer”，也是為數不多的人之一（如果不是唯一的人），實際上正在修改和使用 OP_CAT 來構建用例示例，他製作了基於 OP_CAT 的契約腳本的演示。
This script enforces a specific amount of Bitcoin be sent to a specific address, and by consensus there is no other way to spend these coins except with a transaction that meets those exact conditions. Look at the size of this script:
OP_TOALTSTACK OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT de890a8209d796493ee7bac9a58b62fbced10ccb7311e24f26c461c079ead08c OP_SWAP OP_CAT OPCAT_CATCAT OPCAT_CATCAT_CAT 54617053696768617368 OP_SHA256 OP_DUP OP_ROT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_SHA256 424950303334302f6368616c6c656e6765 OP_SHA256 OP_DUP OP_ROT 79be667ef9bbce 55b06295f870 OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_TOALTSTACK 07029 OP_ROLL OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_SHA2 OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_SWAP OP_CAT OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_DUP 28 OP_CAT OP_ROT OP_SWAP OP_CAT OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_DUP 959 OP_CAT OP_ROT OP_等於2815 OP_CAT 16be81798ef2dcbbac256a1ce2b79bfcdb667dce9d55f06295b870f07029 OP_CHECKSIG
這就是模擬 CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY 所需的內容。使用 CTV 的等效腳本如下：
中視。
我問，像 OP_CAT 這樣的東西在模擬基本模板契約（需要支出交易滿足提前定義的某些條件才有效的東西）的情況下有什麼價值？我們確切地知道如何處理在將輸出鎖定到模板契約的交易上強制執行模板的方案，並且對此有多個建議。 CTV、TXHASH、OP_TX，甚至 APO 都可以透過在交易的鎖定輸出中填充簽名來模擬這些方案，但需要額外的 64 個位元組。
What actual use is OP_CAT in “experimenting” to meet the needs of a class of use cases that are mature enough in design that there are at least 4 covenant proposals that can handle those use cases with a tiny fraction of the data cost? “Oh, we want to experiment with CAT because it’s flexible!” You want to use 30 OP calls to do something that can be done in one? That is a reason to actually enact a consensus change to Bitcoin? The logic of that is beyond absurd.
淡化風險
在真空中，OP_CAT 被出售為“簡單地連接兩個字串”，許多模因試圖將其框定為“這怎麼可能危險？”這是圍繞該提案的極其不誠實的敘述，它完全忽略了它如何與腳本的其他現有和未來方面相互作用。
In particular CSFS + CAT opens a massive amount of possibilities in terms of what can be done with Bitcoin script, not all of it necessarily positive. CSFS allows you to verify a signature on an arbitrary piece of data in the course of executing a script, and CAT allows you to “glue” different pieces of data together on the stack. These two things create a 大規模 design space for what it is possible to do with Bitcoin.
一個具體的例子是有可能強制執行交易中特定輸入和輸出的金額或不同金額之間的關係。 CAT 允許您從堆疊上的各個部分建立交易哈希，而 CSFS 允許您在建立交易時根據鎖定腳本中的公鑰驗證針對該交易的任意部分的簽名。這最終可以創建任何人都可以花費的開放式 UTXO，只要支出交易符合某些標準，例如將特定數量的代幣發送到特定地址。將此與基於 OP_RETURN 的資產的現實結合起來，這開始進入去中心化交易所（DEX）的領域。
Some of the worst incentive distortion problems that have come to fruition on other blockchains ultimately stem from the creation of DEXes on those chains. Having direct non-interactive exchange functionality on the blockchain is one of the worst forms of MEV, especially when the potential exists for miners to lock-in their profit across multiple trades in the span of a single block, rather than having to actually carry the risk of a position across multiple blocks before closing it out and realizing profit.
Part of the movement behind Taproot Wizards is “bringing the innovation back.” I.e. that lessons learned in shitcoin land are coming home 至 Bitcoin, now while I firmly reject the notion that anything useful has been developed on other coins in the last decade other than the basic concept of zero knowledge proofs, this mantra getting louder ignores a massive component of that dynamic even if you disagree with my view there: 關於什麼不該做、什麼該做都有值得學習的教訓.
DEXes are one of the things NOT to do. Nothing has caused as much chaos, volatility in fee dynamics (which we need to smooth out over time for sustainability of second layers), and just all around incentive chaos regarding the base consensus layers of these protocols and their degree of centralization. The idea that we should rush to bring these types of problems to Bitcoin, or exacerbate them by introducing a way to trustlessly embed the bitcoin asset into them in more dynamic and flexible ways, is frankly insane. This to me speaks of large swaths of people who haven’t learned anything from watching what happened on other blockchains in the last half decade or so.
永遠被貓束縛
Looking at the dynamic above between CSFS + CAT, it is worth pointing out that Reardencode’s recent LNHANCE proposal (CTV + CSFS + Internal Key) offers a path to give us eltoo for Lightning in a way that is actually more blockspace efficient than using APO. If this argumentation, and build out of proof of concepts, winds up winning over Lightning developers who want LN symmetry in order to simplify Lightning channel management and implementation maintenance, we very well could wind up getting CSFS in the process. If OP_CAT were active prior to this, then there is no way to avoid the types of detrimental side effects of the two proposals being combined.
This would hold true for every soft fork proposal going forward if OP_CAT were ever activated. It would be impossible to escape whatever side effects or use cases were enabled by combining OP_CAT with whatever new proposals come in future. On its own OP_CAT is clunky, inefficient, and rather pointless. But in combination with other OPs it begins to get stupidly flexible and powerful. This would be a dynamic we would never be able to escape, and features that might wind up being critically necessary in the future for Bitcoin’s scalability could inescapably come with massive downsides and risks simply because of the existence of OP_CAT.
這是否是我們僅僅因為模因運動而想進入的現實？因為人們想要修補極低效率的做事方式，而不是尋找更有效率、更有針對性的建議？我會說不。
Meme campaigns can be fun, I know this. They foster a sense of community and involvement, it's an inherent and inescapable part of the internet and the numerous cultures that exist on it. But this is not how we should be deciding the development process of Bitcoin. They can be fun, and they can even be viciously savage at stabbing directly to the heart of matters people dance around or equivocate on. But they are atrocious at capturing nuance and complexity in many regards.
Trying to steer the consensus of a network like Bitcoin purely based on the value of a meme, rather than reasoned consideration of proposals and their implications, is a disaster waiting to happen. The conservatism and caution of Bitcoin development is what has kept it at the forefront of this space as shitcoins have come and gone, imploding in the consequences of their fly by night carefree development attitude. As much as Bitcoin sorely needs to break out of its current rut of stagnation and lack of forward progress, devolving to uncritical memes and music videos is not how to do that. It risks destroying what made Bitcoin valuable in the first place, its solid and conservative foundation.
原始來源： Bitcoin 雜誌