阅读_872 - 监护权意义的消蚀

我们以前见过这种模式。

We've seen this pattern before.

首先，一项针对恐怖分子的法律，然后逐步扩大定义范围，直到有一天某人在网上发表冒犯性言论就被新条款定性为恐怖分子。

First, a law targeting terrorists, then a gradual expansion of the definition until one day someone saying something offensive online is labeled a terrorist under the new terms.

有趣的是，推动扩大托管定义的甚至不是监管机构。

Interestingly, this push to broaden the definition of custody isn't even coming from regulators.

这是由过度热心的协议推动的，它们试图定义什么是二层解决方案，希望将自己与闪电网络的成功联系起来。

It's being driven by overly zealous protocols attempting to define what a layer two solution is, hoping to associate themselves with the success of the Lightning Network.

所以这就是一个严格、不妥协的托管定义。

So here it is, a strict, uncompromising definition of custody.

比特币领域最棒的内容，现在可听了。

The best in Bitcoin made audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，这里是《比特币可听》。

I am Guy Swan, and this is Bitcoin Audible.

大家好！

What is up, guys?

欢迎回到《比特币可听》。

Welcome back to Bitcoin Audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，一个比你认识的所有人都读更多比特币相关内容的家伙。

I am Guy Swan, the guy who has read more about Bitcoin than anybody else you know.

本期节目由Blockstream的Jade Plus硬件钱包赞助播出。

This show is brought to you by the Jade Plus hardware wallet by Blockstream.

这是款很棒的小钱包，过去几周我经常把玩它。

This is a fantastic little wallet I have gotten to play with a lot in the last couple of weeks.

我刚发布了一个关于基础设置和操作指南的新视频。

I just released another video on the basic setup and walkthrough.

对于那些不喜欢看长达九、十分钟的详细解说视频的人，我也会为我的教程类视频提供这种分步讲解加解说的形式。

And for those of you who don't like to watch like a nine or ten minute video that goes into all of it and kind of step by steps your way through and, you know, provides commentary, I also will be doing for my tutorial type videos.

我会在视频开头直接放一个精简版，大概五十秒就能看完的那种。

I'll be doing a TLDR right at the beginning that, like, bangs it out in, like, fifty seconds.

所以如果你还没看过，或者刚拿到你的J+设备还没设置的话，可以去看看。

So check that out if you haven't or if you have just got your j plus and you haven't set it up yet.

记得检查一下助记词。

And, you know, check on the seed words.

也许...我也不确定。

Maybe maybe I don't know.

我不知道。

I don't know.

可能有点东西在里面吧。

Maybe there's something there.

本期节目由BitKit移动钱包赞助，它在一个超级直观易用的界面中整合了链上和闪电网络功能，用起来特别顺手。

This episode is also brought to you by the BitKit mobile wallet, Onchain and Lightning in one interface that is super intuitive, easy to use, and it just works.

它还有个点对点的联系人列表功能，简直酷毙了。

And also, have a peer to peer contacts list, which is super freaking cool.

这是除了Nostr之外，唯一让我真正特别感兴趣的系统。

It's the only other system that I've been really, really interested in alongside Nostr.

如果你还没试过的话可以去看看，因为它和我们一直在讨论的pub key会有联系。

Check it out if you haven't because it's going to be related to pub key, which we've been talking about.

好的。

Alright.

今天我们有一篇阅读材料。

So we have a a read today.

这篇内容很短，但我认为非常重要。

This is a short one, but I also think it's really important.

它之所以重要，是因为标题已经说明了很多问题。

It's really important because well, the title says a lot about it.

标题是《托管含义的侵蚀》。

It says the erosion of the meaning of custody.

我认为当涉及到这些更高阶或更高层次的系统时，比如讨论依赖于其他协议的协议，或是闪电网络中依赖于链上行为的操作，当你开始接触具有特定细微差别或行为的衍生事物，以及密钥和时间锁的组合时，你会很快发现灰色地带——事情并不像谁在何时、何种条件下拥有控制权那样非黑即白。

And I think there's a lot when when you get into these higher order or the higher layer systems, and we're talking about protocols that depend on other protocols or actions in a lightning channel that depend on something that happens on chain, and you're you're getting into derivatives of other things that have certain nuances or certain behaviors, and combinations of keys and time locks, you start finding gray areas very quickly, where things don't quite work out so black and white as to who has control, when, and under what conditions.

特别是考虑到Samurai钱包开发者和Tornado Cash开发者的案例，这一点区分至关重要。

And especially with, you know, the case around the Samurai wallet developers and the Tornado Cash developers, this is a really, really important distinction to make.

这一点极其重要，必须确保我们对‘第二层’的定义、所有权与控制权的划分，以及‘托管’在比特币语境中的含义没有任何歧义。

This is something incredibly important to make sure there is no ambiguity about what we mean, and what one layer two is and who owns what and who controls what and what does custody mean in the context of Bitcoin.

因为在法币体系中它的含义截然不同——所有东西本质上都是信用形式。

Because it means something very different in the context of fiat land, because everything is a form of credit.

对吧？

Right?

在法币体系里你根本无法真正‘托管’任何东西。

Everything you can't custody anything in fiat land.

除了持有金条和现金（即便如此也存疑，因为你无法掌控美元的规则），这些概念的界定至关重要——尤其当我们进入一个监管定义可能对行业建设者和服务提供商产生巨大正面或负面影响的阶段时。

And outside of holding a gold bar and holding cash, which is still a little bit questionable because you don't you don't control any of the rules of the dollar, These things are really important to define, especially as we get into a place where regulatory definitions could have huge effects to the positive or the negative for builders and service providers in this space.

既然如此，我想读一下尼古拉斯·多里亚的文章，我们节目之前已经选用过他的多篇作品。

So with that, I wanted to read Nicolas Doria's piece, who we've done a number of different pieces from him on the show before.

我一直是尼古拉斯的粉丝，喜欢他过去关于隐私及其他重要议题的写作。

Always a fan of Nicolas and his writings about privacy and a bunch of other great things in the past.

我会试着挑选几篇佳作，把它们作为链接放在节目说明里。

I will try to drum up a couple of the good ones and have them as links in the show notes.

接下来我们会讨论剩余内容，让其他成员跟进，现在开始今天的阅读环节。

But with that, we'll cover the rest and the guys take to follow, and let's get into today's read.

文章标题是《尼古拉斯·多里尔：'托管'含义的侵蚀》。

And it's titled Erosion of the Meaning of Custody by Nicholas Dorrier.

引言部分。

Introduction.

在我看来，'托管'一词的滥用非常危险。

The loose use of the term custody is, in my opinion, very dangerous.

如果你高度重视比特币带来的自由，就应该努力维护这个词的本义。

If you strongly value the freedom Bitcoin provides, you should fight to preserve its meaning.

扩大其定义范围可能会招致监管，最终导致非托管解决方案被禁止。

Broadening its definition risks inviting regulations that could eventually ban noncustodial solutions.

这种模式我们早已见过。

We've seen this pattern before.

先是针对恐怖分子的法律，然后定义逐渐扩展，直到某天在网上发表冒犯性言论的人也会被新条款贴上恐怖分子标签。

First, a law targeting terrorists, then a gradual expansion of the definition until one day someone saying something offensive online is labeled a terrorist under the new terms.

有趣的是，这次推动扩大托管定义的甚至不是监管机构。

Interestingly, this push to broaden the definition of custody isn't even coming from regulators.

这是由过度热心的协议推动的，它们试图定义什么是第二层解决方案，希望将自己与闪电网络的成功联系起来。

It's being driven by overzealous protocols attempting to define what a Layer two solution is, hoping to associate themselves with the success of the Lightning Network.

因此，这里有一个严格且不妥协的托管定义。

So here it is, a strict uncompromising definition of custody.

定义如下。

The definition.

想象一下去购物中心的情景。

Imagine going to a shopping mall.

那天是你妻子的生日，她想买个新包。

It's your wife's birthday and she wants to buy a new bag.

你决定付款。

You decide to pay.

你从口袋里掏出钱包，然后将现金递给收银员。

You take your wallet from your pocket and then hand out the cash to the cashier.

在这种情况下，显然没人会声称你妻子是托管人。

In this case, it's obvious that no one would claim your wife is a custodian.

为什么？

Why?

因为你仍然可以在不需要她许可的情况下使用钱包。

Because you can still use your wallet without needing her permission.

现在考虑另一种情况。

Now consider a different scenario.

你不想随身携带钱包，于是把它交给妻子放进她的包里。

You don't want to carry your wallet, so you hand it to your wife who puts it in her bag.

后来，你经过一家商店，看到一瓶今晚想喝的葡萄酒。

Later, you pass a store and see a bottle of wine you'd like for tonight.

你向妻子要钱包，然后用它付款给收银员。

You ask your wife for the wallet and then use it to pay the cashier.

在这里，你的妻子无疑是个托管人。

Here, your wife is undeniably a custodian.

你必须先征求她的同意才能使用钱包。

You can't use your wallet without first asking her.

她可能总是同意归还钱包的事实并不重要。

The fact that she might always agree to give it back is irrelevant.

关键在于没有她的同意你就无法消费。

The key point is that you can't spend without her consent.

这种缺乏独立控制权的情况意味着不存在比特币玩家所说的单边退出机制。

This lack of independent control means there is no unilateral exit as Bitcoiners would put it.

正如卡莉所写：'要么你拥有对链的单边退出权，要么就是托管模式，有时是经过糖衣包装的版本。'

As Callie wrote, quote, either you have unilateral exit to the chain or it's custodial, sometimes a sugar coated version of it.

单边退出意味着非托管。

Unilateral exit implies noncustody.

非托管意味着单边退出。

Noncustody implies unilateral exit.

这两个是同义词。

Those are synonyms.

那些使用'二层网络'一词来包含托管解决方案的人，本质上是在暗示你的Kraken账户也是一种二层网络。

Those who use the term layer two to include custodial solutions are essentially implying that your Kraken account is also a layer two.

这种滥用使该术语变得毫无意义，就像区块链这个词一样——经过多年被山寨币玩家的滥用和炒作后，它已变成了一个危险信号。

This dilutes the term to the point of rendering it meaningless, much like the term blockchain, which became a red flag after being misused and overhyped by shitcoiners for years.

根本不存在所谓的半托管。

There is no such thing as semi custody.

这一点毫无歧义。

There is no ambiguity.

莱特币回复了卡莉。

Litecoin replied to Callie.

如果一个状态链允许单方面退出，且运营者能与前密钥持有者合谋盗取资金，这该叫什么？

What do you call a state chain which has unilateral exit and the operator can collude with a prior keyholder to steal?

对此卡莉回答称：非托管。

To which Callie answered, Noncustodial.

同理还有闪电网络强制关闭时遭遇内存池阻塞攻击或手续费暴涨等情况。

Similarly, lightning force close with mempool pinning attack or bad fee spike, etcetera.

我咬文嚼字的定义里包含'几乎总是可以单方面退出'这一条。

My pedantic definition includes an, quote, almost always for unilateral exit.

我强烈反对这个回答。

I strongly disagree with this response.

虽然结论正确，但推理过程有问题，会导致托管定义被稀释。

While the conclusion is correct, the reasoning is not and would lead to a diluted meaning of custody.

我们需要分开讨论这两个问题。

We need to address the two points separately.

第一，允许第三方合谋盗取资金的协议；第二，可能因外部环境（如手续费暴涨或阻塞攻击）而失效的协议。

One, protocols allowing third party collusion to steal funds, and two, protocols that may fail under external circumstances, huge fee spike or pinning attacks.

关于第三方勾结的问题。

About third party collusions.

那么像状态链甚至ARC这样的协议呢？

What about protocols like state chains or even ARC?

如果勾结可能导致资金被盗，它们真的还是非托管的吗？

Are they really non custodial if collusion might lead to the theft of funds?

答案毫无疑问是肯定的。

The answer is an uncompromising yes.

让我们用一个现实世界的类比来思考。

Let's consider a real world analogy.

你知道Netflix可以在不征得你同意的情况下提高订阅价格。

You know that Netflix can raise its subscription price without asking your permission.

每个月你都会继续支付，除非你取消订阅。

Every month, you continue paying unless you cancel.

一旦你订阅后，他们不需要你的同意就可以扣款。

They don't need your consent to withdraw funds once you've subscribed.

有人会因为Netflix有能力从你账户扣款就说它是托管方吗？

Would anyone claim that Netflix is a custodian because it has the ability to charge your account?

是否存在单方面退出机制？

Is there a unilateral exit?

不，不存在。

No, there isn't.

当然，你可以要求Netflix停止扣款或指示银行拦截付款，但你不能不经过他人就单方面阻止扣款。

Of course, you can ask Netflix to stop charging your account or instruct your bank to block payments, but you can't stop it without asking someone.

若不存在单边退出机制，根据我们的定义，就必须存在托管方。

If there is no unilateral exit, by our definition, there must be a custodian.

订阅涉及三方：你、你的银行和Netflix。

The subscription involves three parties: you, your bank, and Netflix.

之所以没有单边退出机制，是因为存在托管关系，而托管方是你的银行。

There's no unilateral exit because custody exists, and the custodian is your bank.

再次强调，当不存在单边退出机制时，就意味着存在托管。

Once again, when there is no unilateral exit, there is custody.

若存在托管关系，就不存在单边退出机制。

If there is custody, there is no unilateral exit.

现在回到比特币的话题。

Now back to Bitcoin.

如果像Statechains或Arc这样的协议允许通过合谋盗窃作为其安全模型的一部分，这是否意味着存在托管？

If a protocol like Statechains or Arc allows theft through collusion as part of its security model, does that imply custody?

不是。

No.

因为与上述Netflix的例子不同，这里存在单边退出机制。

Because unlike the Netflix example above, there is a unilateral exit.

因此，不可能存在托管方。

Therefore, there cannot be a custodian.

关于外部环境因素。

About external circumstances.

单边退出可能因服务器宕机、网络拥堵、高手续费、攻击（例如MIM拉钉攻击）、意外密钥丢失（比如你的猫删除了密钥）等因素而变得不可能。

Unilateral exit might become impossible due to factors like server downtime, network congestion, high fees, attacks, for example, MIM pull pinning, accidental key loss, for example, your cat erasing your keys.

让我们重新审视购物中心的比喻。

Let's revisit the shopping mall analogy.

你把钱包放在包里，决定将包存放在商场的储物柜中，并保留钥匙。

You have your wallet in your bag and decide to store the bag in a locker at the mall, keeping the key.

稍后你在商店结账时，发现钱包还在储物柜里，更糟的是钥匙也丢了。

Later, you try to pay at a shop, but you realize your wallet is in the locker, and worse, you've lost the key.

此刻，储物柜管理员实际上成为了托管人。

At this moment, the coin locker owner effectively becomes a custodian.

你现在需要依赖他们才能取回钱包。

You now depend on them to grant you access to your wallet.

没有他们的帮助，你将无法动用资金。

Without their help, you cannot retrieve your funds.

无论现有安全协议如何，这种情况本质上与依赖银行金库没有区别。

Regardless of the security protocols in place, this situation is functionally no different from relying on a bank's vault.

单方面存取权限的丧失改变了这种关系。

The loss of unilateral access transforms the relationship.

托管关系的形成，正是因为你失去了独立操作的能力。

Custody now exists because you no longer have the ability to act independently.

本质上，非托管意味着用户对资金保持完全主权。

Fundamentally, non custody means the user retains full sovereignty over their funds.

这自然包括转移或丧失主权的可能性，无论是否出于自愿。

This inherently includes the ability to transfer or lose that sovereignty, whether voluntarily or not.

即便是契约机制也无法完全避免这点，因为主权意味着终极控制权，包括主动放弃或失误丧失的权利。

Even mechanisms like covenants cannot entirely prevent this, as sovereignty implies ultimate control, including the choice or mistake to relinquish it.

回到比特币的话题。

Back to Bitcoin.

虽然协议可能是非托管的，但实际情况仍可能重新引入托管机制。

While a protocol may be non custodial, circumstances can still reintroduce custody.

这源于所有权的本质。

This stems from the very nature of ownership.

我们唯一能客观评估的是协议本身是否是非托管的。

The only thing we can objectively evaluate is whether the protocol itself is noncustodial.

正如我们已确立的，只要存在单边退出机制，该协议就是非托管的。

As we've established, so long as a unilateral exit exists, the protocol is noncustodial.

外部情况不应影响这一判定，因为所有权按定义始终是可转让的。

External circumstances should not factor into this determination as ownership is always alienable by definition.

正如自由主义者所主张的，唯一真正不可剥夺的所有权是对自己身体和意志的掌控。

As a libertarian would argue, the only truly inalienable ownership is over your body and will.

不过我说跑题了。

But I digress.

托管式实施方案。

Custodial implementations.

正如我们所见，由于所有权的本质特性，无法阻止人们以托管方式使用非托管协议。

As we've seen, it isn't possible to prevent the use of a non custodial protocol in a custodial way due to the very nature of ownership.

有个有趣的观点将托管式实现（如Wallet of Satoshi）与非托管式钱包（如Phoenix）进行对比。

An interesting argument compares a custodial implementation Wallet of Satoshi to a non custodial one like Phoenix.

其声称在这两种情况下，如果Phoenix或Wallet of Satoshi背后的服务器消失，资金都将无法使用。

The claim is that in both cases if the servers behind Phoenix or Wallet of Satoshi disappear, the funds become unspendable.

因此，尽管凤凰钱包将密钥存储在用户设备而非服务器上，仍有人认为它与Satoshi钱包一样具有托管性质。

Thus, Phoenix is argued to be as custodial as Wallet of Satoshi even though it stores keys locally on your device rather than on a server.

人们可能会通过指出凤凰钱包允许备份助记词或通道来反驳这一观点。

It might be tempting to counter this argument by pointing out that Phoenix allows you to back up the seed or channels.

然而，我认为这是错误的思路。

However, I believe this is the wrong approach.

如果凤凰钱包是唯一能解析这些备份的实现方案，且其服务不可用，用户仍将无法恢复资金。

If Phoenix were the only implementation capable of interpreting those backups and it became inaccessible, users would still be unable to recover their funds.

关键在于单边退出的可能性，即使服务器宕机也能实现。

The correct argument lies in the possibility of a unilateral exit, even if the servers go down.

即使凤凰钱包不提供备份导出功能，只要所有必要数据仍保留在用户手机上，仍可实现单边退出。

Even if Phoenix didn't provide an export option for backups, as long as all necessary data remains on the user's phone, it is still possible to achieve a unilateral exit.

这个区别至关重要，也是我在先前示例中强调'能够'这个词的原因。

This distinction is critical and is why I've emphasized the word can in earlier examples.

单边退出的能力才是定义非托管性质的关键。

The capacity for unilateral exit is what defines noncustody.

用户是否具备执行的技术知识并不重要。

Whether the user has the technical knowledge to execute it is irrelevant.

重要的是他们能够做到，或者可以寻求他人协助完成。

What matters is that they can or that someone else could assist them in doing so.

结论。

Conclusion.

希望我已成功论证了对托管定义应采取严格不妥协的立场。

I hope I've successfully made the case for a strict and uncompromising definition of custody.

通过这篇文章，我希望鼓励你自信地指出任何误用'托管'或'二层'等术语的人。

With this article, I hope to encourage you to confidently call out anyone misusing terms like custody or layer two.

对语言的攻击常常为更广泛的混淆或操纵铺平道路，因此坚守立场并捍卫清晰至关重要。

Attacks on language often pave the way for broader confusion or manipulation, so it is crucial to stand your ground and defend clarity.

了解这些协议的安全模型仍然很重要，因为正如我们讨论过的，非托管并不意味着你不会失去对资金的控制。

Being aware of the security model of these protocols is still important because as we've discussed, noncustody doesn't mean you can't lose control of your funds.

不过这是个更广泛的话题，而我在此的重点仅在于定义'托管'。

However, this is a broader topic, and my focus here was solely on defining custody.

对定义、对词语含义保持极度精确非常重要。

Being extremely specific about definitions, about what a word means is very important.

我认为这一点被很多人忽视，他们只是随意摆手说'哦，我们可以让词语想表达什么意思就什么意思'。

And I think this is lost on a lot of people and and just kind of hand waved away that, oh, we can have words mean whatever the hell we want them to mean.

但实际上不行，因为这些就像是基础工具。

It's like, well, no, we can't because so much like, these are these are foundational tools.

词语、语言是基础工具，我们有无数事物建立在它们之上。

A word, a language is a foundational tool, and we have tons of things built in layers on top.

如果我们不明确词语的含义，就如同不明确交易如何清算、如何确认，或交易确认的含义——当你在比特币基础上构建闪电网络、CTV或其他层级系统时，却对构成它的基础元素或其形态、运作方式含糊不清。

The idea that we are not clear about what a word means is very similar to not being clear about how a transaction clears or how a transaction is confirmed or what a confirmation for a transaction means, and then trying to have lightning or CTV or any other layer or system built on top of something like Bitcoin when you are ambiguous about what the foundational tool or the the element that makes it up is or what it looks like or how it works.

就比特币而言，很难说有比'托管'更重要的词汇了。

And when it comes to Bitcoin, it is hard to say that the word cuss that there is a more important word than the word custody.

这正是我想读这篇文章的原因——我认为尼古拉斯·多利亚出色地认识到了这场讨论的重要性，因为人们太容易敷衍说'随便啦'。

And that's specifically why I wanted to read this article is because I think Nicholas Doria does a fantastic job of recognizing the importance of that discussion because it's so easy to just go, oh, whatever.

'托管就是托管'。

Custody means custody.

你知道吗？

You know?

但法律和监管环境对我们正确理解这个词至关重要，这样我们才能始终拥有坚实的论证基础。

But the legal and regulatory environment are absolutely crucial for us to get that word right so that we always have a strong founding to argue from.

如果我们能自行定义托管，那么我们就能始终基于自己的定义进行论证。

If we can define custody for ourself, then we can always argue from the position of our definition.

有趣的是，或者说更重要的是要指出，法币世界实际上无法定义托管。

And it's interesting to point out or rather important to point out is that the fiat world literally can't define custody.

就像，他们必然无法理解这个概念，因为在传统金融体系中，托管的整个概念本质上是荒谬的，因为没有任何东西能被真正拥有。

Like, it is necessarily the case that they are not going to understand it because the entire idea of custody in the normie, in the traditional financial system is kind of nonsensical because nothing can really be owned.

比如，比特币是首个能够被真正拥有的数字物品。

Like, this Bitcoin is the first digital thing that can be owned.

因此，我们对于拥有代币托管权的定义实际上极其重要，必须非常具体和精确，因为我们是首个拥有可以自我托管的数字资产或价值单位的群体。

Therefore, our definition of what it means to have custody of our coins is actually is extremely important in being very specific and very precise about what it is that we mean because we are the first ones who have a digital asset or a digital unit of value that can be custodied by ourselves.

我特别喜欢这个概念的简洁性和明确边界——在没有任何第三方参与，或任何突发事件、费用激增等情况发生时，无论发生什么，只要没有他人介入，你就能掌控自己的代币。

And I really like the simplicity and the clear boundaries around the idea that in the absence of anyone else, any other third party or any other thing happening or fee spike or whatever, doesn't matter what happens, in the absence of anybody else's involvement, you can get your coins.

你拥有密钥或必要信息，无论谁失联或没有客服支持，你都能取回自己的代币。

You have the keys or the information necessary in order to take your coins no matter who is unavailable for comment or or has no support line or whatever it is.

这正是他使用凤凰城例子的原因，我认为这是定义论点或划定论证边界的绝佳方式，因为凤凰城就是个完美范例。

And this is exactly why he uses the example of Phoenix, and I think that's it's a it's a great way to define the argument or kind of give edges to the argument because Phoenix is a perfect example of okay.

好吧，他们可以所谓的'审查'。

Well, they can quote unquote censor.

他们其实无法真正审查。

They they can't really censor.

作为你的LSP（闪电服务提供商），他们可以阻止你在他们的钱包中进行闪电网络交易，因为所有交易都需经由他们路由。

They can stop you from making a transaction on Lightning in their wallet because they are your LSP, because they are all of the transactions are routed through them.

但你掌握着密钥、预映射信息，你的应用里拥有一切所需。

But you have the keys, you have the preimage, you have everything in your app.

你运行的是一个轻量级客户端。

You are running a light client.

你的设备上运行的客户端具备所有必要的密钥和通道信息。

You are running in a a client with all of the reg requisite keys and channel information on your device.

随着Phoenix彻底崩溃，他们的所有服务器宕机，密钥全部损毁，整个系统瞬间灰飞烟灭。

And with Phoenix completely blowing up, all of their servers blowing up, all of their keys getting screwed, the c e everybody everybody just vanishing in thin air.

他们就像打了个响指，像灭霸那样全变成灰烬，随风飘散了。

They, you know, fingers clicked, Thanos turns them all ashy, and they blow away in the wind.

你的币还在你手里。

You still have your coins.

你只需要以另一种方式广播交易即可。

All you have to do is broadcast in a different way.

虽然你无法发送闪电网络交易，但你可以轻松发送链上交易，将你的币转移到任何你想去的地方。

They're not going you're not gonna be able to send a lightning transaction, but you can easily send an on chain transaction and take your coins wherever you want.

事实上，你是唯一能控制这些币的人。

In fact, you were the only one with control over those coins.

我特别喜欢这个定义，因为它并不意味着其他人不能对此提出异议，也不意味着其他人不会成为问题——无论这些币是在隔离见证地址里，还是在闪电网络通道中，或是其他情况。

And I specifically like this definition because it means that only if it doesn't mean that somebody else can't challenge it or that somebody else can't be a problem because it's in an arc or it's in a lightning channel or something else.

重点并不在于在所有情境、所有条件下，你都能随时无条件立即动用你的币——无论他人如何操作、天气如何变化，或是网络手续费处于什么水平。

It's not really about the fact that, like, everything is opportune in all situations or circumstances and at all times for you to unequivocally have immediate access to your coins no matter what anyone else does or what the weather is like or what the fees are fees fees are on the network.

因为我特别认为那不太重要，要知道，在很多情况下你可能确实拥有某个UTXO的唯一密钥，但在某些条件下这仍可能带来问题。

Because I specifically think that's less important, you know, because there's so many so many times in which you could actually own the only key to a specific UTXO, and that can still present a problem in certain conditions.

举个很好的例子，假设你拥有一个10万聪的UTXO，但手续费突然涨到98美元。

Like, great example is, let's say, you own a 100,000 sat UTXO, but fees spike to $98.

如果你的托管定义意味着这可能成为问题，由于某些其他条件或手续费原因，或者因为别人广播了交易，导致你无法取出那笔资金，那么你就得承认：当你的UTXO金额太小，而转账手续费高达9.8万聪时（对于10万聪的UTXO而言）。

Well, if your definition of custody means that, you know, it can be a problem and you might not be able to get that value back out because of some other conditions or because of fees or because somebody else broadcasting something, well, then you would have to say that because your UTXO is so small and the fee is gonna cost you 98,000 sats for a 100,000 sats UTXO to move.

这时你就陷入了一个尴尬的灰色地带——你会觉得这显然属于自我托管，但又缺乏明确的界定标准。

Well then, now you're in this weird gray area where you're like, oh, but that's not that's definitely self custody because of not really a great clear distinction.

你再次陷入诸多灰色地带，因为这些条件并不必然在任何特定时刻都对你有利。

You're you're back to a lot of gray areas because the conditions are not necessary are not necessary to be in your favor at any one particular time.

问题在于：你是否具备独立退出的能力？

The question is, do you have the ability to exit by yourself?

你是否掌握信息、密钥，能否在没有其他参与者的情况下独自生成所需的签名？

Do you have the information, the the keys, and can you produce the signature necessary for you by yourself with no other participant there?

你能动用那些币吗？

Can you take those coins?

你能广播一个能在比特币网络上确认的有效交易吗？

Can you broadcast a valid transaction that could confirm on the Bitcoin network?

我认为这才是最佳定义方式，它能实现所有其他潜在优势——比如隐私即服务、ARC支付服务、协作矿池等场景。在这些场景中，你既保持对资产的控制权，又能让他人为你提供金融服务而无需交出托管权。

And I think that is the best way to define it, and it is the one that enables all of the other potential benefits like privacy as a service and arc payment services and pools where you can work together with somebody with state chains where you have the ability to exit and you still have custody of your coins, but someone else can provide a financial service for you without being a custodian.

这种清晰界定很重要：它让你能在保留资产控制权的前提下，根据不同条件调整托管方式，从而在大规模用户池中实现即时隐私支付、流动性转换等闪电通道功能。

And I think that clear distinction, the ability to have that trade off to place your own custody under a different set of conditions while still retaining your custody to get something like instant private payments or transfers and changes in liquidity for lightning channels within this large pool of other users.

当然也包括接入闪电网络——虽然使用闪电通道，但你始终保有通道内资产的控制权，因为任何状态更新都需要你掌握全部签名信息才能单方面退出。

Or of course, to connect into the lightning network because you used a lightning channel, but obviously, you still have custody of your coins in the lightning channel, because no updates occur without you having every single piece of information you need to sign in order to unilaterally exit.

正因如此，也更容易界定某些侧链之间的差异。

And because of this, it's also easy to to define the difference between certain side chains.

Liquid并非自我托管模式。

Liquid is not self custody.

它是一种更优的托管模型。

It is a better custodial model.

它以不同方式分层分配信任：你可以分离司法管辖信任，可以分离机构信任，本质上通过将风险提升到更高层级（比如在更高层级传递）来稀释单一机构的风险。

It does distribute trust in a different way and across different layers that you can separate out jurisdictional trust, you can separate out institutional trust, and you can basically dilute the risk of any one institution by by essentially scaling up the risk higher, like sending it at at a higher layer.

这样可以吗？

Is that okay.

你必须明确考虑国际政府风险，或是适用于机构群体而非单个人或机构的风险。

Well, you have to have explicit, like, international governmental risk or, you know, a a risk that applies to a group of institutions rather than just one or one person.

因此它或许是更优的托管模型，但终究仍是托管模型。

And so maybe it is a better custodial model, but it remains a custodial model.

这个定义的另一个优点是，它为二层网络讨论提供了清晰框架，让我们能明确可接受的权衡点。

And another good thing about this definition specifically is that I think it recognizes or gives an easy way to frame the discussion about layer twos in order to know where the trade offs are acceptable.

以Lightning和Arc为例：Arc提供商若串通拦截交易阻止你获取代币，与你未经Arc许可就无法提现，是两种不同情况。

Using Lightning and Arc as a decent example is the Arc trying to the Arc provider colluding with a pass transaction in order to prevent you from getting your your coins versus you not having the like, you not being able to withdraw without the ARC provider's permission.

这是两种不同的情境。当准确定义托管时，我们期望的权衡取舍就会非常清晰。

Those are two different sets of circumstances, and I think it's it makes it when you when you define custody properly, it makes it pretty clear what we would want the trade off to be.

第一种情况中，若Arc提供商蓄意作恶，你将面临挑战；而后者的问题在于，若他们作恶、缺席或出错，你都无法操作。

Because in the the first case, you have to worry about or there is a situation in which you are being challenged if the ARC provider is, specifically malicious, whereas in the alternative, whereas the situation where essentially you can't do it without their permission is that you have a problem with them if they are malicious or if they simply are not present or if they make an error.

在纯粹自我托管场景中，服务商提供的是服务而非控制——你不会面临因审查丢失代币、永久无法访问或获取资金等风险。

There's a whole another list of things where you could lose your coins or simply never have access to them or have be censored from getting them that do not apply in the strictly self custody scenario where they are providing you with a service.

我认为这极大影响了如何权衡ARC这类系统的成本或利弊，并将其与其他二层系统区分开来。

And I think that makes a big difference about how you weigh the cost or the trade offs of something like ARC and distinguish ARC from some other alternative layer two system.

至少在我看来，这也展示了金库或契约型系统（如CTV）原始设计的威力与价值——它本质上提供了一种途径，确保你始终掌握密钥，始终拥有提取代币所需的信息，且能以高度批量化方式实现（单个UTXO背后可托管成千上万个自我保管的UTXO）。

And it also shows, at least in my opinion, it kind of demonstrates what the power of or why I think the benefit of the primitive of a vault or a a covenant type system is, something like CTV, is that it essentially gives you an avenue to know that you are always you always have access to the keys, you always have access to the information necessary to withdraw your coins, and that this can be done in a heavily, like, insanely batched way where there can be thousands upon thousands of self custodied UTXOs behind a single UTXO.

某种意义上，这正是ARC通过连接器实现的效果。

I mean, in a sense, that's actually what ARC accomplishes with connectors.

若配备CTV这类功能，整个系统将高效得多、优越得多也简单得多。

It's just far more efficient and a much better system and a much simpler system if it has something like CTV.

当我们讨论什么是真正的二层、二层系统的目标时，我认为CFSC同样重要，必须明确我们所用系统的权衡层级。

And I believe also c f s c when we are talking about what is a true layer two, what is the goal for layer two systems, and how do we be very clear about what the hierarchy of trade offs is regarding any any system that we are using.

特别向尼古拉斯·多雷尔致意。

And a shout out to Nicholas Doreier.

我很久没读过或看到尼古拉斯的任何文章了。

I haven't read anything from Nicholas or I haven't seen anything from Nicholas, I don't think, in a while.

这次讨论非常精彩且及时，或许正因如此尼古拉斯会专门撰文——尤其在监管环境变得'更友好'且更活跃的当下。若能根据我们设计协议时采用的定义，在监管层面明确界定托管与非托管的界限，将极大消除开发和部署软件服务时的模糊性，这对推动行业迅猛发展、构建健康市场生态至关重要。

And, this was a good one, and I think also a very timely discussion, which is probably why Nicholas had bang out an article about it, Especially as the regulatory environment is becoming, quote, unquote, more friendly and more active in the space, being able to define that custody and clearly delineate what is and is not custody, If we can actually get that in the regulatory environment as well according to the definitions that we are using when we are designing the protocol, the systems, the the actual protocols that we are using, I just think it opens up so much clarity and lack of ambiguity in developing, in building and deploying software, in deploying services, and that's a very, very critical thing to have if we want really aggressive progress going forward and a really healthy market and ecosystem in in any particular jurisdiction.

为此特别感谢尼古拉斯，希望各位喜欢本期内容。

So shout out to Nicholas for this one, and I hope you guys enjoyed this episode.

非常感谢大家的收听。

Thank you so much for listening.

别忘了订阅节目。

Do not forget to subscribe.

节目成长靠大家分享——虽然我理应支付营销费用，但实际并没有。

This show grows because you guys share it out, and I do not pay for marketing because I should, but I don't.

但我一直做得不错，就是让节目继续下去并制作内容，因为这是我喜欢做的事。

But I've always just done good just keeping the show going and producing content because that's what I like to do.

非常感谢所有在Fountain和Noster上助推和流媒体卫星的人。

And thank you so much to everyone who boosts and stream sats on Fountain and on Noster.

对于使用我的推广链接的人，如果你还没拿到Jade Plus，可以享受10%的折扣。

And for everyone who uses my affiliate link, you have not speaking of, if you had not gotten your jade plus, you can get 10% off.

折扣很重要。

Discounts are important.

不要把折扣留在桌上不用。

Do not leave discounts on the table.

使用代码GUY可享10%折扣。

Use code GUY to get 10% off.

这是一款非常棒的硬件钱包，我个人最喜欢Jade Plus的设置是启用蓝牙的绿色钱包。

It is a fantastic hardware wallet, and specifically, my favorite setup for the Jade Plus is green wallet with Bluetooth enabled.

这是将密钥与设备分离的完美平衡点。

It's the sweet spot between you're separating your keys from the device.

你可以在Jade Plus屏幕上验证你正在签署的内容和所有细节，而且它用起来也很顺手。

You can verify on the Jade Plus screen what you are signing and all of the details, and it also just works.

通信速度超快，操作超级简单。

Communication is super fast, super simple.

你只需将它们并排放置，在两台设备上确认所有内容，就可以进行广播。

You just sit them next to each other, and you confirm everything on both devices, and you can broadcast.

安全性和易用性的完美结合。

Great combo between secure and easy to use.

如果你正在寻找一款易于使用的闪电网络钱包，拥有直观设计，能快速在链上和闪电网络间切换，并确保闪电网络功能正常，那就是BitKit钱包，B-I-T-K-I-T。

And now if you were looking for lightning that is easy to use and a wallet that has an intuitive design for both on chain and Lightning and swapping very quickly between the two and just having Lightning work, that is the BitKit wallet, b I t k I t.

这款产品由Synonym团队开发，他们还开发了大量其他超酷的点对点和去中心化项目。

This is built by the guys over at Synonym with tons of other really cool peer to peer and decentralized stuff that they are working on.

我们最近经常讨论他们的公钥技术，我相信公开测试版很快就会推出。

We've been talking about their pub key stuff a lot recently, and that's actually really soon to, I believe the public beta.

我正翘首以盼。

I'm I'm fingers crossed.

应该就在这几天了，到时候我就能详细介绍了。

I'm gonna have that any day now, so I can start talking about that as well.

敬请期待。

So stay tuned.

别忘了关注他们，试试这款超棒的BitKit钱包。

Don't forget to check them out, follow them, and check out the big hit wallet.

感谢大家的收听，我们下期《比特币之声》再见。

With that, thank you all so much for listening, and I will catch you on the next episode of Bitcoin Audible.

各位，我们下次见。

Until then, everybody.

大家保重。

Take it easy, guys.

智慧始于术语定义。

The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.

苏格拉底。

Socrates.