阅读_904 - 2014年的Op_Return之战

为什么像分布式交易所这样的DApp通常建立在以太坊而非比特币上？

Why are DApps such as distributed exchanges typically on Ethereum rather than Bitcoin?

毕竟，在比特币上构建分布式交易所、命名系统或替代代币等DApp确实是可行的。

After all, it's certainly possible to build DApps such as distributed exchanges, naming systems or alternative tokens on top of Bitcoin.

这当然有几个原因，比如：一）以太坊拥有更灵活的原生脚本语言，使得构建DApp更容易；二）以太坊更快的出块时间，使DApp用户体验更友好；三）比特币选择了比以太坊更保守的区块大小限制，导致比特币上可能产生更高的手续费。

There are of course several reasons for this, such as: one) Ethereum's more flexible native scripting language, making it easier to build DApps two) Ethereum's faster block time, making DApps more user friendly or three) Bitcoin choosing a more conservative block size constraint than Ethereum, resulting in potentially higher fees on Bitcoin.

以上因素确实都有影响，但在我们看来，它们的影响经常被夸大。

All of the above did have an impact, however their impact is often overstated in our view.

最重要的因素是文化差异。

The most significant factor is culture.

一些比特币支持者和开发者根本不想在比特币区块链上看到这类活动，并成功劝阻了相关尝试。

Some Bitcoiners and Bitcoin developers simply did not want this type of activity on the Bitcoin blockchain and they successfully discouraged it.

比特币领域的精华尽在Audible。

The best in Bitcoin made Audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，这里是Bitcoin Audible。

I am Guy Swan, and this is Bitcoin Audible.

大家好，最近怎么样？

What is up, guys?

欢迎回到Bitcoin Audible。

Welcome back to Bitcoin Audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，一个比你认识的所有人都阅读了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.

抱歉在今天的节目中。

Sorry in today's episode.

如果你能听到钉枪的声音，现在可能就能听到。

If you can hear nail guns going off, you can probably hear it right now.

我试着在编辑和录音时避开这些噪音，但他们正在扩建施工，进展顺利，所以我绝对不会让他们停下来。

And I try I'm trying to edit and record around it, but they are adding on the extension and progress is being made, so I will absolutely not tell them to stop.

因此你可能会听到些背景噪音，而我实在无法处理这个问题，同时还要确保今天的工作能完成。

But because of that, you might hear a little bit of background noise, and I won't be able to, I will really not be able to do anything about it and actually still get work done work done today.

不过我们本期节目很精彩。

But we have a good episode.

我们准备了一篇非常棒的文章。

We have a really great read.

我的立场很明确——关于过滤器和操作返回这些概念，我的观点已经表达得很清楚了。

So my stand I mean, I've I've made very clear how I think about the idea of filters and op return, all of this stuff.

其实我想特别提一下这件事。

And I do feel like actually, just mention this.

今早我和约翰·卡瓦略做了期节目，我们简要讨论了这个话题，因为它实在太应景了。

We had a I had a show this morning with John Carvalho, which we briefly talked about that just because it's such a relevant topic.

我认为他提出了一些非常棒的观点，而且他实际上没有明确支持任何一方立场。

And I actually think he had some really great points, and he didn't he'd actually didn't say one way or the other on the issue.

他说争论这个问题其实比选择任何路径造成的损害更糟糕。

He said basically arguing about it is actually worse than the damage done by going either path.

但他的观点并非没有道理。

But he he didn't have a bad point.

他提出了个值得思考的有趣观点。

He he had an interesting point that was worth considering.

但我觉得特别有意思的是，最近有人翻出了彼得·韦拉在2013或2014年对此事的评论，他谈到增加OP_RETURN功能或扩大其数据容量本质上是对区块链的一种不当使用。

But one of the things that I thought was really interesting is recently somebody dug up a comment by Peter Wella from way back in 2013, 2014 on this issue, talking about how, like, adding in op return and and or expanding the amount of data that can go in op return is this is basically an undesirable use of the chain.

我们讨论的是随意塞入数据的行为——人们甚至把NFT和JPEG文件都往里存，虽然这当时并非问题核心，但显然是种普遍认知方式。

And that we're talking about just sticking arbitrary data in, people literally putting in NFTs and JPEGs, which sort of at the time wasn't the core of the issue, but it was obviously a very prevalent way to think about it.

当时人们确实承认这是一种应用场景。

Like, it was it was recognized that this was a use case.

而且我觉得他总结得特别好，没有任何戏剧化表达，也没有掺杂任何情感或哲学立场。

And, one of the thing I thought that he summed it up so well without any drama or any, like, emotional or philosophical thing on either side.

就是非常简单地指出：事情很可能就是这样被看待的，以及会带来什么后果。

Just a very simple, this is just how it's likely to be seen and what the consequences are.

这显示出对社会经济结果——更准确说是激励结果而非纯技术层面所谓'技术正确'——惊人的认知度。我认为当前巨大分歧的关键就在于，有些人坚持技术论证是唯一重要的，甚至提及其他因素都毫无意义。

And it showed a shocking amount of recognition to the social and economic outcomes, the kind of incentives outcome rather than the pure technical sense as to what is quote unquote technically accurate, which I think is a huge part of the unbelievable divide here is that people there's there's literally a side that thinks the technical argument is the only thing that matters and even mentioning or suggesting anything else is is just irrelevant.

我个人认为这种观点完全错误，比特币周边有很多非纯技术性的因素。

And I think I personally think that's an entirely incorrect view is there's a lot around Bitcoin that is not purely technical.

虽然也有观点认为其他共识最终都会因无法扩展而崩溃，最后剩下的只有技术因素。

Though, there could be an argument to be made that eventually, all of the other consensus is going to break down anyway because it doesn't scale, and at the end, we're only left with the technical.

但我觉得事情也没那么简单，因为这个系统本质上依赖激励机制。

But I don't think that's quite so simple either because we essentially, the system relies on a an incentive structure.

对吧？

Right?

矿工没有动力去破坏给他们带来收益的协议。

Is that miners are not incentivized to destroy their own protocol, the the protocol that is paying them.

不过我不想过多陷入争论细节或站队问题。

But I don't wanna get too much into the weeds of an argument or putting it on one side or the other.

我的观点是，当我感到不确定或存在激烈争论时，当问题关乎其存在性还是无关紧要时，我发现这往往意味着有更多值得深挖和阅读的内容。尽可能学习一切，并公开讨论和倾听各方观点，才是真正取得进展的唯一途径。

My point is that if I feel unsure or there's a really aggressive and vicious debate going on about, and the question is whether or not it's existential or it doesn't matter, I've always found that that means there's more to dig, there's more to read, that learning every single thing you can, and openly addressing and listening to both or any side or any take on it is the only way to actually get anywhere.

而这篇来自BitMEX研究团队几年前的报告，确实在某种程度上明确暗示了一个方向。

And this article from BitMEX Research from a few years ago is actually it it kind of it definitely hints toward one direction.

它明确暗示当前数据状况良好，我们应当能够妥善处理等等。

It definitely hints toward the current, like, data is okay and we should just be able to deal with it properly, etcetera.

我觉得这就是他们试图保持所谓'中立'的方式，但感觉这就是他们的倾向。

Like, I I think that's the way they try to kind of be quote unquote unbiased, but it feels like that's the way they're going.

但我觉得有趣的是，这篇文章完全可以被解读为支持任何一方。

But what's funny to me and what I find interesting about this is that this could be entirely taken either either way.

某种意义上，这可以证明过滤器如何运作，为什么社交层很重要，以及投资和开发这些工具的经济动机为何重要。

In a sense that this could be this is evidence of just how filters work and why the social layer matters and why the economic incentives of investing and building these tools matter.

我不确定这是否是文章的初衷，但值得深入探讨这篇文章两个不同方向的潜在影响。

And I'm not sure that was the intended purpose of the article, but I think it's worth digging into both of this, the implications of both different directions of this article in particular.

这关乎2014年发生的所谓'OP_RETURN战争'——虽然不一定是战争，但在OP_RETURN字段存在大量争议性数据时有过很多争论。他们确实说对了，这是比特币发展方向历史上的关键节点。

And this is about what happened in 2014 and the quote unquote Op Return Wars, which not necessarily is op return wars that, like, there were a lot of, like, arbitrary data in op return periods where there were arguments about it, but they are certainly right that this was a relevant moment in the history of which direction Bitcoin took.

这个铺垫已经足够，我们马上就会进入文章内容。

So that's well enough lead in, and we'll get into the article in just a second.

特别感谢Ledn（l e d n.io）提供的比特币抵押贷款服务。

A shout out to Ledn, l e d n, dot I o for Bitcoin backed loans.

这是你无需出售比特币就能获得法币的方式。

This is how you can get fiat out of your Bitcoin without selling it.

我认为最佳使用场景是当你持有稳健投资时。

I think the best use case for this is if you have a solid investment.

如果你手上有能确定收益的投资，那你应该明白这些收益永远无法超越比特币，但你可以用它来抵消贷款利息。

If you have something that you know you're going to make a certain return, well, you also know that return will never beat Bitcoin, but you can beat an interest rate for a loan.

但通过类似Ledin的服务，你既能继续持有比特币。

But with something like Ledin, you get to keep owning the Bitcoin.

去了解一下吧。

Check them out.

对此做好调研。

Do your research on this.

要知道，务必细读条款细则，清楚自己将承担的风险。

You know, make sure you read the fine print and you know the risk that you're you're getting into here.

但对于不想出售比特币又想使用其价值的人来说，这项服务非常宝贵。

But this is a really valuable service for people who want to use their Bitcoin without selling it.

另外也推荐Synonym和PubKey，网址pubky.app。

Also, check out Synonym and PubKey, pubky.app.

他们开发了一套协议工具，将托管服务与信息源分离，打破网络中的信息孤岛和封闭生态。

They have built a set of protocol tools to separate the hosting and the source of truth and information from the servers themselves to basically break down all of the silos and walled gardens of the web.

如果你是开发者却还没认真研究过这些工具，现在必须行动了。

If you are a developer and you haven't seriously looked at these tools, you got to.

具体链接详见节目说明。

Link in details around down in the show notes.

Get Chroma专注光健康，调节昼夜节律——我每晚8点后控制蓝光照射，这对睡眠质量和精力水平产生了显著改善。

Get Chroma is all about light health, getting your circadian rhythm right, controlling my blue light after about 08:00 at night has actually made a massive difference in like my sleep and energy levels.

我强烈推荐。

I highly recommend it.

使用代码Bitcoin Audible可享受10%折扣。

And there's a 10% discount with code Bitcoin Audible.

最后，要特别感谢HRF（人权基金会）。

And lastly, a massive shout out to the HRF.

他们的奥斯陆自由论坛真是场精彩绝伦的活动。

Their Oslo Freedom Forum is such an amazing event.

你可以购买门票。

You can get tickets.

节目说明里有链接，还有他们出色的《财务自由报告》新闻通讯。

There's a link down in the show notes as well as their amazing newsletter, the Financial Freedom Report.

务必订阅。

Definitely subscribe.

这里报道的是主流媒体绝不会涉及的——关于真正自由的新闻、政治斗争以及捍卫自由的工具。

It is the news about genuine freedom, the politics, the struggle, and the tools to defend it that you will never get from mainstream media.

所有这些你都能在描述区找到。

All of this you will find right down in the description.

好了。

Alright.

接下来我们进入今天的文章，之后我会用简短的个人解读来分析为何我认为这篇内容对该主题极具探讨价值。

With that, let's get into today's article, and we will follow it with a short guy's take to break down how I think about this and why I think this is a valuable piece to dig into for this particular topic.

文章标题是《2014年OP_RETURN之战：DApps与比特币交易》，由BitMEX研究院于2022年7月12日发布。

And it's titled The Op Return Wars of 2014, DApps versus Bitcoin transactions by BitMEX Research, 07/12/2022.

摘要。

Abstract.

本文探讨了为何DApp通常基于以太坊而非比特币开发，这要追溯到2014年3月。

In this piece, we explore why DApps are typically built on Ethereum rather than Bitcoin, which takes us all the way back to March 2014.

我们研究了一场关于DApp协议Counterparty是否及如何利用比特币区块链的辩论。

We examine a debate about whether and how a DApp protocol called counterparty should use Bitcoin's blockchain.

这段历史有时被称为'OP_RETURN战争'。

This was sometimes called the OpReturn Wars.

我们将阐述比特币中OP_RETURN功能与侧链的使用历史。

We explain the history of OpReturn usage and sidechains in Bitcoin.

最后我们提出论点：无论是否认同，2014年比特币开发社区的固有文化，以及对比特币交易数据用于其他用例的负面态度，连同其他因素共同促使这些DApp开发者转向了以太坊等替代系统。

We conclude by arguing, whether one likes it or not, that it was the culture in the Bitcoin development community in 2014 and the negative view of using Bitcoin transaction data for alternative use cases which played a major role in pushing developers of these dApps onto alternative systems like Ethereum along with other factors.

概述 我们常被问及：为何分布式交易所等DApp通常选择以太坊而非比特币？

Overview We have often been asked the question: Why are DApps such as distributed exchanges typically on Ethereum rather than Bitcoin?

毕竟在比特币上构建分布式交易所、命名系统或代币等DApp确实是可行的。

After all, it is certainly possible to build DApps such as distributed exchanges, naming systems or alternative tokens on top of Bitcoin.

原因当然包括：1)以太坊更灵活的脚本语言便于DApp开发 2)以太坊更快的出块时间提升DApp用户体验 3)比特币选择比以太坊更保守的区块大小限制，可能导致更高手续费。

There are of course several reasons for this such as: one) Ethereum's more flexible native scripting language making it easier to build DApps two) Ethereum's faster block time making DApps more user friendly or three) Bitcoin choosing a more conservative block size constraint than Ethereum, resulting in potentially higher fees on Bitcoin.

上述因素确实都有影响，但我们认为其影响常被夸大。

All of the above did have an impact, however their impact is often overstated in our view.

最关键的因素是文化差异。

The most significant factor is culture.

部分比特币支持者和开发者根本不愿看到此类活动出现在比特币区块链上，并成功阻止了它们。

Some Bitcoiners and Bitcoin developers simply did not want this type of activity on the Bitcoin blockchain and they successfully discouraged it.

这一现象主要发生在2014年3月前后，本文将重点解析该时期的历史事件。

This seems to have primarily occurred in around March 2014 and what happened in that period is the subject of this piece.

与此同时，以太坊等其他区块链的推广者可能利用并夸大了比特币开发者的这一明显立场，以帮助他们的新链获得关注。

At the same time, promoters of other chains such as Ethereum may have exploited and exaggerated this apparent stance from the Bitcoin developers to help their new chains gain traction.

正如我们在2020年9月的报告中提到的，Counterparty协议于2014年初推出。

The Counterparty Protocol As we mentioned in our September 2020 report, towards the start of 2014, Counterparty launched.

Counterparty是建立在比特币之上的协议层，支持新代币创建以及在分布式交易所交易这些代币等功能。

Counterparty is a protocol layer on top of Bitcoin that enables features such as new token creation and the trading of these tokens on a distributed exchange.

该系统通过利用比特币交易数据的一部分，在Counterparty协议中实现诸如创建代币、发送代币或在分布式交易所对代币进行市场报价等功能。

The system works by using parts of Bitcoin transaction data and using this in the counterparty protocol as a function, such as creating a token, sending a token, or a market bid on a token on a distributed exchange.

更简洁地说，最初Counterparty使用比特币操作码OP_CHECKMULTISIG将相关数据写入比特币区块链。

More concisely, at the start, Counterparty used the Bitcoin opcode OP Check Multisig to include Counterparty related data into the Bitcoin blockchain.

该操作码本应用于验证支付到脚本哈希(P2SH)多重签名交易的签名。

This opcode was supposed to be used to verify the signature for a Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) multi signature transaction.

这里可以看到2014年7月的一个Counterparty交易示例。

An example of a counterparty transaction from July 2014 can be seen here.

该交易将比特币发送回原地址，并包含三个额外输出，其输出脚本是与Counterparty协议相关的数据。

The transaction sends Bitcoin back to the address it came from and also has three additional outputs, where the output scripts are data related to the counterparty protocol.

在这个案例中，是创建了一个名为Ticket的新代币。

In this case it was the creation of a new token called Ticket.

使用OP_CHECKMULTISIG可以被视为一种取巧手段，因为这并非该操作码的设计初衷。

Using OpCheck Multisig can be thought of as a hack because this was not the intended use of the opcode.

Counterparty现在使用比特币的OP_RETURN操作码存储数据，这在一定程度上更符合开发者的本意。

Counterparty now uses Bitcoin's OpReturn opcode to store data, which is more in line with what developers intended to some extent.

例如，请参阅这个使用OP_RETURN的较新Counterparty交易。

For example, please see this more recent counterparty transaction which uses OpReturn.

2014年初，Counterparty平台周围涌现了大量实验性开发活动、创新尝试和热烈讨论，当时它在与MasterCoin平台的竞争中处于领先地位。

In early twenty fourteen, there was considerable experimentation, developer activity, innovation and excitement around Counterparty, which had the lead over a rival platform called MasterCoin.

什么是Op Return？

What is Op Return?

Op Return是比特币中一种可证明无法花费的交易输出。

Op Return is a transaction output in Bitcoin that is provably unspendable.

该功能可用于销毁比特币或在比特币区块链上存储任意数据。

The function can be used to burn Bitcoin or store arbitrary data in the Bitcoin blockchain.

由于这些数据不属于UTXO集合，通过这种方式存储数据被认为有助于比特币扩容，因为执行剪枝操作的节点无需存储opreturn数据。

Since the data is not part of the UTXO set, storing data this way is said to help scale Bitcoin, as nodes that engage in pruning do not need to store opreturn data.

2013年5月，有人在以下交易中利用了这一特性。

In May 2013 somebody took advantage of this feature in the following transaction.

该交易的opreturn输出包含了1987年Rick Astley的歌曲《Never Gonna Give You Up》的歌词，这首歌与Rick Rolling网络迷因相关。

The op return output in this transaction contains the lyrics to the 1987 song Never Gonna Give You Up by Rick Astley, the song related to the Rick Rolling meme.

2014年之前，包含opreturn的交易属于非标准交易，普通比特币节点不会转发。

Prior to 2014, transactions containing an op return were non standard and not relayed by ordinary Bitcoin nodes.

但如果矿工打包这些交易，它们仍会被视为有效。

However, if a miner included those transactions, they were considered as valid.

2014年3月发布的Bitcoin Core 0.9.0将OpReturn功能列为标准交易类型，这类交易从此会被默认转发。

In March 2014, Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 was released with the OpReturn feature included as a standard transaction type, therefore the transactions would be relayed by default.

当时的版本说明特别强调：本次更新并非对区块链存储数据的认可。

The release notes at the time said the following: This change is not an endorsement of storing data in the blockchain.

opreturn变更创建了可证明可剪枝的输出，避免了将图像等任意数据作为永久不可花费的交易输出存储，从而缓解比特币UTXO数据库膨胀的问题。

The opreturn change creates a provably prunable output to avoid data storage schemes that were storing arbitrary data such as image as forever unspendable transaction outputs, bloating Bitcoin's UTXO database.

在区块链中存储任意数据仍是个糟糕的主意，将非货币数据存储在其他地方成本更低且效率更高。

Storing arbitrary data in the blockchain is still a bad idea it is less costly and far more efficient to store non currency data elsewhere.

比特币核心0.9.0版本仅会转发OP_RETURN不超过40字节的交易。

Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 would only relay transactions with an op return of 40 bytes or less.

若数据超过此限制，交易虽仍有效但不会被转发。

If the data was larger than this, it was still a valid transaction, but not relayed.

最初限制设定为80字节，但经过多次讨论后，开发者最终确定为40字节。

The limit was originally intended to be 80 bytes, however after much discussion, the developers settled on 40 bytes.

需要明确的是，比特币核心已发布版本中的OP_RETURN转发限制从未降低过。

To be clear, the op return relay limit in a released version of Bitcoin Core never declined.

2015年2月，比特币核心0.11.0版本最终将转发上限提升至80字节。

In February 2015, Bitcoin Core 0.11.0 finally increased the relay limit to 80 bytes.

2016年1月，比特币核心0.12.0版本再次将限制提高到83字节，即现行标准。

In January 2016, in Bitcoin Core 0.12.0, the limit was increased again to 83 bytes, the limit we have today.

虽然这3字节的提升仅是由于计算方式变更（将操作码本身计入），严格来说并非真正的限额增加。

Although this three byte increase was merely a change in how the counting worked to include the opcodes themselves, so it is not a quote real increase.

这意味着如今若想进行OP_RETURN超过80字节的交易，必须自行挖矿或直接发送给矿工处理。

This means that if one wants a transaction with an opreturn output of over 80 bytes today, one has to mine it themselves or send it directly to a miner.

目前对OP_RETURN大小并无实质性的共识限制。

There is no real consensus limit on the size of OpReturn.

但脚本公钥存在10,000字节的限制，不过可能存在规避方法。

There is, however, a script pub key limit of 10,000 bytes, but it may be possible to get around this.

OP_RETURN战争始末：2014年3月20日，比特币当时的核心贡献者Jeff Garzik开始在BitcoinTalk论坛的Counterparty主题下发帖。

The OpReturn Wars On 03/20/2014, one of Bitcoin's main contributors at the time, Jeff Garzik, started posting on the counterparty thread on the BitcoinTalk forum.

杰夫当时在批评对手方对区块链空间的使用方式。

Jeff was criticizing the use of blockchain space by counterparty.

迄今为止，我还没见过哪个区块链数据转储方案不能被简单的哈希算法安全替代。

To date I have not seen a blockchain data dumping scheme that cannot be securely replaced with a simple hash.

你根本不需要把数据存储在区块链上。

You don't need to store data in the blockchain.

这纯粹是智力上的懒惰。

That is purely intellectual laziness.

对哈希数据进行时间戳处理同样安全且更高效。

Time stamping hash data is just as secure while more efficient.

此外，二级链完全可以被证明与比特币挂钩。

Furthermore, a secondary chain can be provably pegged to Bitcoin.

杰夫接着说，多重签名检查功能严格来说是为EC DSA公钥设计的，不是用来处理任意数据的。

Jeff went on to say, Check Multisig is quite literally intended for EC DSA public keys, not arbitrary data.

当某项操作被用于非设计初衷的用途时，产生负面后果——可能是意料之外或未知的——这并不令人惊讶。

It should be no surprise that using an operation for something other than its intended purpose has negative, perhaps unintended or unknown consequences.

对手方的交易并不符合比特币协议。

Counterparty transactions are not according to the Bitcoin protocol.

它们能蒙混过关，是因为协议从未预料到该功能会被这样使用。

They slip through because it never expected that the feature would be used in that way.

有人可能觉得杰夫持这种观点很奇怪，因为他在2017年似乎是大区块支持者，而这种对区块空间保守使用的观点与大区块理念相矛盾。

One may think it's odd that Jeff had this view, given that in 2017 he appeared to be a large blocker, and that this view about the conservative use of block space does not appear to reconcile with the large block view.

然而在2014年，这种表面矛盾完全不存在。

However, this apparent contradiction did not appear at all in 2014.

杰夫当时的观点在某种程度上得到了当时许多活跃开发者的认同，包括后来成为主要阻碍者的那些人。

Jeff's view at the time was shared to some extent by many of the active developers at the time, including the ones which later became large blockers.

就我们所能确定的而言，人们对区块大小限制的看法与这个问题之间根本不存在简单的对应关系。

As far as we can tell, there was no simple mapping at all between one's view on the block size limit and this issue.

杰夫当时是一位备受尊敬的开发者，这篇文章对对方开发者和用户来说是个相当大的顾虑。

Jeff was a highly respected developer at the time, and this post was a considerable concern for the counterparty developers and users.

一位化名为比特币实物信托的对方开发者这样回应杰夫：你说得完全正确。

A counterparty developer with a pseudonym Bitcoin Tangible Trust responded to Jeff as follows: You're absolutely right.

你不需要将数据存储在区块链中。

You don't need to store data in the blockchain.

对哈希数据进行时间戳记录同样安全且更高效。

Timestamping hash data is just as secure while more efficient.

二级链可以通过证明与比特币挂钩。

A secondary chain can be provably pegged to Bitcoin.

然而，根据对方联合创始人兼首席开发者幻影怪客的说法，对方正在使用每三个多重签名交易中的256字节来存储区块链数据。

However, counterparty is storing data in the blockchain using two fifty six bytes in each one of three multisig transactions as per Phantom Freaks, the counterparty co founder and lead developer.

见下文注释。

Note below.

此外，所有这些多重签名交易都是由矿工处理的。

Additionally, all these multisig transactions are processed by the miners.

该开发者继续批评比特币开发者计划将Opperturn限制为仅40字节而非80字节。

The developer continued by criticizing the Bitcoin developer's plan to limit Opperturn to just 40 bytes rather than 80.

引用：如果OpreTurn的目的是阻止或限制多重签名行为，从而减少区块链膨胀，那么我担心通过将OpreTurn的大小从80字节减少到40字节，你们无意中使多重签名对所有元协议更具吸引力，而使操作返回的吸引力降低。

Quote: If OpreTurn was meant to stop or curtail the multisig behavior and hereby reduce blockchain bloat, then I fear by reducing the size of OpreTurn from 80 to 40 bytes, you've inadvertently made multisig more attractive to all the meta protocols, and you've made op return less attractive.

这位化名为Phantom Freak的首席对手方开发者兼联合创始人插话道。

The lead counterparty developer and co founder who went by Phantom Freak chimed in.

引用原话：'这个想法是我们在第二条区块链中存储数据，并将这些时间戳数据的哈希值存入比特币区块链，这些哈希值也将小于40字节。'

Quote, the idea is that we store the data in a second blockchain and put the hashes of that time stamped data in Bitcoin, which hashes would also be less than 40 bytes.

我们之所以没有这样做，并非如引号内所言是'智力懒惰'，而是实现复杂度的问题。

The reason we did not do something like that is not a matter of intellectual laziness, quote unquote, but rather of implementation complexity.

Counterparty并非计算机科学领域的项目。

Counterparty is not a project in computer science.

它的设计尽可能简单，以追求效益和开发速度。

It is designed to be as simple as possible, for the benefits and development speed.

即使我们不得不将数据存储在多重签名输出而非过小的OP_RETURN输出中，在这个领域里，'更差反而更好'。

Even if we have to store our data in multisig outputs rather than the too small opreturn outputs, worse is definitely better in this space.

次日Jeff回应道：'这叫搭便车'。

The next day, Jeff responded: It is called a free ride.

鉴于比特币区块链90%以上的应用都是货币用途，将全节点当作哑数据存储终端使用，就是在滥用这个全由志愿者支撑的网络资源。

Given that the overwhelming majority (over 90% application for the Bitcoin blockchain is currency use, using full nodes as dumb data storage terminals is simply abusing an all volunteer network resource.

网络会复制交易数据，何不跟着搭个便车呢？

The network replicates transaction data, so why not come along for a free ride?

Mastercoin和Counterparty没有与现有社区沟通，就直接打开开关开始将比特币P2P节点当作非自愿的数据存储库使用，而未花费交易输出本就不是为任意数据存储设计的。

Rather than engage the existing community, Mastercoin and Counterparty simply flipped an on switch and started using Bitcoin peer to peer nodes as unwanted data stores, and unspent transaction output was never meant to be used as arbitrary data storage.

能够这样滥用的事实，并不意味着这种做法正确、高效或是最佳解决方案。

The fact that it can be abused as such does not make it right or remotely efficient or the best solution.

UTXO（未花费交易输出）数据库是整个网络的快速访问数据库。

The UTXO, or unspent transaction output, database is the entire network's fast access database.

每个节点都需要尽可能小的数据库，以实现网络交易的最佳处理。

Every single node needs that database to be as small as possible for best processing of network transactions.

将任意数据编码到未花费输出中，简单明了地说就是全网范围的滥用行为。

Encoding arbitrary data into unspent outputs is network wide abuse, plain and simple.

整个网络都在为此承担成本。

The entire network bears the cost.

由于Jeff在社区内的高声望，Counterparty社区的大多数人似乎都积极希望参与解决这个问题。

Due to Jeff's high standing within the community, most people in the counterparty community seemed keen to engage and resolve the issue.

例如，Bitcoin Tangible Trust回应说：'感谢分享你的想法，Jeff。'

For instance, Bitcoin Tangible Trust responded by saying, Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jeff.

那么，你愿意帮助我们开始与现有的比特币核心开发社区接触吗？

So, will you help us start engaging with the existing Bitcoin Core Dev community?

作为负责任的合作伙伴符合Counterparty的利益，因为我们需要比特币区块链才能生存。

It's in counterparties' interest to act as a responsible partner as we need the Bitcoin blockchain if we are to survive.

你能告诉我们如何开始就这些问题展开合作吗？

Will you let us know how we can start working together on these questions?

另一位Counterparty开发者提出了另一点：'比特币协议有没有办法在不破坏其他功能的情况下阻止XCP的使用方式？'

Another counterparty developer brought up another point: Is there a way for the Bitcoin protocol to prevent the way XCP is using it without breaking anything else?

如果比特币开发者无法阻止与Counterparty相关的交易，也许这种反对无关紧要，Counterparty可以继续未经许可地使用比特币。

If there is no way for Bitcoin developers to block the counterparty related transactions, perhaps this opposition didn't matter and counterparty could continue using Bitcoin without permission.

比特币开发者兼当时矿池运营商Luke Dasher随后加入了辩论。

Bitcoin developer and at the time mining pool operator Luke Dasher then entered the debate.

矿工本应过滤掉滥用行为。

The miners are supposed to filter out abuses.

卢克·达舍尔随后提出，这类系统可以通过合并挖矿的侧链结构来构建，从而可能避免区块链膨胀问题。

Luke Dasher then suggested these kinds of systems could be built using merge mined sidechain type constructions, which may avoid the blockchain bloat.

问题不在于新层次，而在于违背人们意愿强制推行。

The problem isn't new layers it's forcing things on people against their will.

新层次可以基于自愿选择实施，既不会污染区块链，也不会强制非参与者存储数据。

New layers can be done on an opt in basis, without polluting the blockchain and forcing nonparticipants to store the data.

卢克还被问及为何比特币开发者将OpReturn中继大小从最初提议的80字节限制缩减至40字节。

Luke was also asked why the Bitcoin developers reduced the intended OpReturn relay size down to 40 bytes compared to an 80 byte limit, which was originally proposed.

卢克回应了以下三点：第一，太多人误以为OpReturn是设计来使用的功能。

Luke responded with the following three points: One, too many people were getting the impression that OpReturn was a feature meant to be used.

它从来就不是为此设计的，只是作为『给窗户留条缝，这样有人闯入时我们就不用换玻璃』的权宜之计。

It was never intended as such, only a way to quote leave the windows unlocked so that we don't need to replace the glass when someone breaks in end quote.

也就是说，是为了减轻滥用比特币行为造成的损害。

That is, to reduce the damage caused by people abusing Bitcoin.

第二，

Two.

40字节对于将数据绑定到交易的所有合法需求已经绰绰有余。

40 bytes is more than sufficient for all legitimate needs for tying data to a transaction.

你可以用32字节存储哈希值，再加8字节作为某种唯一标识符——其实连这个也没必要。

You get 32 bytes for a hash plus eight bytes for some kind of unique identifier, which really isn't necessary either.

第三，最初80字节的提案本意是容纳五个十二位哈希，但后来发现这并无必要。

And three, the original 80 byte proposal was intended to be for five twelve bit hashes, but this was determined to be unnecessary.

卢克·达舍尔继续作了如下阐述。

Luke Dasher continued as follows.

希望挖矿能回归去中心化，我们将看到对滥用和垃圾交易的容忍度降低，无论是OpReturn变种还是其他形式。

Hopefully, mining returns to being decentralized, we will see less toleration of abusive and spam transactions, whether the OpReturn variant or otherwise.

如果有人确实存在需要将哈希与交易一起存储的有效用例，显然矿工们应该认真考虑开采这类交易。

Now if someone has a valid necessary use case for actually storing hashes with transactions, obviously that's a case miners should seriously consider mining.

卢克当时的矿池也开始过滤掉与Counterparty相关的交易。

Luke's mining pool at the time also started filtering out counterparty related transactions.

此时，Counterparty社区开始滋生恐惧和不确定性。

At this point, fear and uncertainty started to build in the counterparty community.

他们需要opreturn保持80字节，否则将被迫继续使用opcheck多重签名操作码。

They needed opreturn to be 80 bytes, or they would be forced to keep using the opcheck multisig opcode.

鉴于卢克的评论，opreturn似乎不太可能提升到80字节。

It did not seem likely that it would go up to 80 bytes given Luke's comments.

除此之外，有人担心开发者可能会进一步降低限制，甚至可能将Counterparty踢出网络。

In addition to this, some feared the developers could even reduce the limit even further, potentially booting Counterparty off the network.

比特币开发者对Counterparty似乎并不特别友好，因此有些人可能觉得继续使用比特币协议会很困难。

The Bitcoin developers did not seem especially friendly to Counterparty, and therefore some may have felt that it was likely to be difficult to continue to use the Bitcoin protocol.

2014年3月25日，以太坊主要创始人Vitalik Buterin加入了讨论。

On 03/25/2014, Vitalik Buterin, the main founder of Ethereum, chimed in.

他主张争论应更多围绕手续费展开，只要支付足够费用，交易就应该被合法包含。

He argued that the debate should be more around fees, and if you pay enough fees, then your transaction should be legitimately included.

如今以太坊的手续费算法高度复杂，针对不同区块链用途设置了多种费用档位和费率，这本质上解决了opreturn问题。

Today Ethereum's fee algorithm is highly complex, with different fee buckets and rates for many different blockchain uses, which essentially solves the op return problem.

有人可能会说比特币的隔离见证也在一定程度上缓解了这个问题。

One can argue that Segwit on Bitcoin also mitigates the problem to some extent.

如果协议认为OpReturn之争是个大问题，那么在理想世界里，滥用这个概念根本就不会存在。

If the protocol thought that the OpReturn battle is such an issue, in an ideal world, the concept of abuse would not even exist.

他说，费用应该是强制性的，并经过精心设计，以准确反映特定交易对网络造成的实际成本。

Fees would be mandatory and carefully structured to closely match the actual cost that a given transaction imposes on the network, he says.

只要你能为你所做的事支付费用，那么你就应该被允许做这件事。

If you can pay the fees for what you're doing, then you should be able to do it.

无需多问。

No questions asked.

2014年3月27日，Counterparty改变了交易方式以绕过Luke Dasher的矿工过滤器。

On 03/27/2014, Counterparty changed the way it made transactions to get around Luke Dasher's mining filter.

然而第二天Luke评论道：'好消息！'

However, the following day Luke commented that, quote, Great news!

'不到五分钟就用一行代码添加了过滤这个垃圾的功能。'

Filter added to block this crap in less than five minutes and one line of code.

Luke Dasher还将Counterparty比作一种滥用行为。

Luke Dasher also likened Counterparty to a form of abuse.

这是滥用，因为你强迫他人违背自由意志下载和存储你的数据。

It's abuse because you're forcing others to download, store your data against their free choice.

每个全节点都必须下载完整的区块链，无论是否可修剪。

Every full node must download the full blockchain, prunable or not.

每个全节点都同意下载和存储金融交易数据。

Every full node has consented to download and store financial transactions.

但并非每个全节点都同意存储其他任何内容。

Not every full node has consented to store anything else.

这件事需要100%的共识，而不仅仅是部分人的同意。

You need a 100% consensus for this, not merely some subset, I.

E，不是矿工也不是开发者，甚至不是多数人说了算。

E, not miners and not developers, or even a majority.

此外，每个人都有权存储不在区块链上的数据。

Furthermore, everyone is free to store data that isn't in the blockchain.

把这些数据强塞进区块链毫无意义，只会强迫那些不需要的人接受。

There's nothing to be gained by putting it in the blockchain except that you force it on others who don't want it.

请解释这除了滥用权力还能是什么？

Explain how this is anything but abuse.

对比特币开发者的愤怒。

Anger at Bitcoin developers.

正如预料的那样，比特币开发者的关切最终引发了一些Counterparty开发者和用户的不满与愤怒。

As one might expect, the concern from Bitcoin developers was eventually met with frustration and anger from some counterparty developers and users.

我们在下方摘录了他们的一些评论。

We have included some of their comments below.

首先，一位名叫Porcupine的用户对Luke Dasher矿池屏蔽Counterparty交易的评论。

Firstly, from a user called Porcupine commenting on Luke Dasher's mining pool blocking counterparty transactions.

太好了。

Great.

开发者们非但没有负责任地寻求解决方案，反而在玩猫捉老鼠的游戏。

Instead of developers responsibly engaging towards finding a solution, you're promoting cat and mouse.

你意识到你这是在践踏网络中立原则，试图用私人标准决定哪些交易该不该上链吗？

You realize that you're also saying fuck it to net neutrality and trying to take it into private hands with kind of transactions people should and shouldn't make on the blockchain?

接下来是什么？

What's next?

制裁你不喜欢的某些人？

Sanctions of certain individuals you don't like?

制裁那些来自政府外交政策你不认可的国家的节点所广播的交易？

Sanctions for transactions broadcast from nodes in countries whose government's foreign policy you don't approve of?

2014年3月21日，Porcupine继续说道：等一下。

On the 03/21/2014, Porcupine went on to say: Wait a minute.

是什么时候决定每个节点都同意存储X类型数据而非Y类型数据的？

When was it decided that every node has consented to store X type of data and not Y type of data?

也许我也不同意存储涉及黑钱、违禁药品和武器、人口贩卖等交易。

Maybe I also did not consent to store transactions for blondered money, illicit drugs and weapons, human slavery, etc.

你基本上是在否定协议中立性，并决定协议应该和不应该被用来存储什么。

You're basically negating protocol neutrality and deciding what the protocol should and should not be used to store.

更重要的是，你不是以第一人称发言，而是使用‘我们’这个代词，给人一种你代表所有矿工或协议用户整体发言的印象。

And more than that, you aren't speaking in first person but using the pronoun us, given the impression that you are speaking for all miners or protocol users as a whole.

其他人对为什么Jeff和Luke有权比其他人更优先阻止某些用例表示担忧。

Others expressed concern about why Jeff and Luke had a right to block certain use cases over anyone else.

我无法相信这种态度。

I can't believe this attitude.

我不知道比特币有所有者。

I didn't know Bitcoin had owners.

我以为我和大约一百万人都是所有者。

I thought I and about a million others were owners.

Phantom Freak，Counterparty的联合创始人表示：首先，Counterparty交易属于金融交易。

Phantom Freak, the counterparty co founder, said, First of all, counterparty transactions are financial transactions.

其次，每个全节点都同意下载并安装完整的比特币区块链，一点不少。

Second, every full node has consented to download and install the Bitcoin blockchain, no less.

也就是说，这些交易完全符合比特币协议，Counterparty交易显然也是如此。

That is, transactions that accord to the Bitcoin protocol, which counterparty transactions obviously do.

中本聪在创世区块里嵌入了政治信息，这可是明摆着的事实。

Satoshi embedded a political message in the genesis block, for Christ's sake.

你对比特币可能用途的看法比其他人狭隘得多。

You have a much narrower view of the possible use cases for Bitcoin than do others.

他/她继续说道：比特币现在实现的许多功能最初都并非设计初衷。

He or she continued, Bitcoin does lots of things that it was not originally intended to do.

是的，我们非常希望能采用比现有方案更优雅的解决方案。

Yes, we'd greatly prefer to use a more elegant solution than what we have now.

Counterparty最初设计是使用OpReturn输出来存储所有消息数据，我认为这种方式非常优雅，对区块链的影响微乎其微。

Counterparty was originally designed to use the OpReturn output to store all of its message data, which I feel is very elegant and leaves a minimal impact on the blockchain.

我们所有的消息格式都是围绕Gavin在比特币官方博客公布的80字节限制来规划的。

We planned all of our message formats around the 80 byte limit announced by Gavin on the official Bitcoin blog.

我们使用多重签名输出纯属无奈之举。

We only use multisig outputs because we have no other choice.

我们并不想扩展比特币协议。

We don't want to extend the Bitcoin protocol.

我们希望在协议框架内，以最简单直接的方式实现功能，从而获得稳定性、安全性等方面的优势。

We want to do something entirely within it and as simply and as directly as possible for the benefits to stability, security, etc.

重申一次，我们只在区块链中存储金融交易数据，并且我们为所使用的空间付费。

Again, we only store financial transactions in the blockchain, and we are paying for the space that we're using.

对于全节点来说，存储Opretern输出中的金融交易数据并不比其他类型数据更麻烦。

Financial transactions in Opretern outputs aren't any more painful for a full node to store than anything else.

另一个叫Bitwiz的用户说：如果你不想存储它，那就别存。

Another user called Bitwiz said: If you don't want to store it, don't.

相当简单。

Fairly simple.

别用比特币。

Don't use Bitcoin.

别下载区块链。

Don't download the blockchain.

你就彻底自由了。

You're scot free.

不过，我的观点是比特币的功能不仅限于交易。

However, my consent means that I believe Bitcoin has more functionality than just for transactions.

鉴于没有人拥有它且存在op return功能，我不明白为什么仅仅因为你不愿存储这些数据（而存储与否本就是可自由选择的），就要废除这个功能。

And based on the fact that nobody owns it and there is an op return feature, I don't see why that functionality should be eradicated because you don't want to store the data which you already have a free choice on.

引用另一个网友的话说：我实在无法理解为什么对手方交易不构成金融交易，也不明白为什么仅仅因为（比方说）一千个节点中有一个不愿意接受这些数据，就默认应该禁止它？

Quote another Anon lol said, I really cannot understand how a counterparty transaction would not constitute a financial transaction, nor can I understand the point of view that because, say, one node out of a thousand is not willing to accept this data, by default, it should be forbidden?

在经历了Mt.

After the recent nightmare that was Mt.

Gox事件这场噩梦，以及大量因将余额存储在中心化实体而导致的黑客攻击、盗窃、关闭和损失后，Counterparty似乎提出了一个去中心化、无需信任的解决方案。

Gox and huge amount of hacks, thefts, closures, and losses that came from storing your balance on centralized entities, it seems that Counterparty had come up with a solution that allowed a decentralized, trustless solution to this problem.

BadDW说过，事实上，任何人都可以随时在区块链中存储任意数据。

BadDW said, The fact is, arbitrary data can be stored in the blockchain by anybody at any time.

这一功能过去和现在都已被用于此目的。

It has been and is being used for this purpose already.

每个运行比特币节点的人都应该知道这一点，如果不知道，那么在安装比特币QT时应该看到相关提示——如果有的话，我不记得看到过。

Everybody running a Bitcoin node should already know this, and if they aren't, it should be part of the notice that comes up when they install Bitcoin QT, if there is one, I don't recall seeing one.

比特币交易可能只是简单的资金转移，也可能是一封情书，甚至是引爆炸弹的触发器。

Any Bitcoin transaction could just be a simple movement of funds, or it could be a love note, or it could be a trigger of setting off a bomb.

消除这种可能性将扼杀比特币。

Eliminating this possibility would kill Bitcoin.

毋庸置疑。

Period.

他接着说道：计算史上许多最伟大的发展，乃至整个人类技术史上的重大突破，都源于人们为发明者未曾设想的用途找到了新用途。

And he went on to say: Many of the greatest developments in computing history, and indeed human technological history on the whole, are the result of people finding uses for things which were unintended by their inventors.

值得庆幸的是，大多数发明者不会过度保护自己的发明而拒绝他人用于新领域。

Good thing that most inventors are not so protective of their inventions that they decline to let others use it for new things.

那些固步自封的发明者很快就被时代淘汰了。

Those that did, found themselves surpassed quickly.

从这些评论中可以明显看出，许多Counterparty用户和开发者对比特币开发者的立场感到惊讶和失望。

It is clear from these comments that many counterparty users and developers were surprised and disappointed by the stance from Bitcoin developers.

尽管这个项目像Mastercoin一样继续存在，但无论如何，很可能有些开发者因此离开了比特币，转而在以太坊等其他区块链系统上构建自己的协议。

Although the project continued as did Mastercoin, it is likely that for better or for worse, some developers left Bitcoin as a result of this and and instead built their own protocols on other blockchain systems such as Ethereum.

我们认为，2014年的这个时刻比其他任何时刻都更具决定性意义。

It is this 2014 moment that was in our view more significant than any other.

然而，其他人可能有不同的看法。

However, others may have a different view.

在关于OP_RETURN的整个辩论中，反对Counterparty和区块链膨胀的人通常会提到某种形式的联合挖矿侧链作为DApps的解决方案。

Merge mined sidechains Throughout the opreturn debate, opponents of counterparty and blockchain bloat typically mentioned some form of merged mined sidechains as a solution for DApps.

实际上，据说中本聪曾支持这一路径，并在2010年12月曾提议将其用于域名系统。

Actually, Satoshi is said to have favored this path and is said to have supported it for a domain name system in December 2010.

我认为BitDNS完全可以成为一个完全独立的网络和独立的区块链，同时与比特币共享算力。

I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate blockchain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.

唯一的重叠点在于让矿工能同时为两个网络寻找工作量证明。

The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof of work for both networks simultaneously.

将这些DAP系统实现为侧链存在诸多困难，如今我们对这些缺陷的理解比2014年时更深入——当时许多人只是假设它们能运作。

There are many difficulties with implementing these DAP systems as sidechains, and our understanding of these weaknesses is better understood today than it was in 2014, when many people just assumed they could work.

复杂性。

Complexity.

最显著的缺陷之一是实现和构建侧链解决方案的复杂性。

One of the most significant weaknesses is the complexity in implementing and building sidechain solutions.

在争夺协议先发优势和市场份额的竞赛中，这些项目没有时间构建侧链及与比特币的联合挖矿系统。

In a race to get the protocol out early and win market share, these projects did not have time to build a sidechain and the merge mining system with Bitcoin.

作为原生资产的比特币 可能无法在侧链上实现非托管的比特币作为运营资产，因为无信任的双向锚定机制或许根本无法构建。

Bitcoin as a native asset It may not be possible to have non custodial Bitcoin as an operating asset on a side chain, because a trustless two way peg may not be possible to build.

这对许多DApps来说是重大缺陷，例如那些想要在分布式交易所使用比特币作为主要交易对的场景。

This is a large weakness for many DApps who may for example want to use Bitcoin as the main trading pair in a distributed exchange.

这一缺陷在2014年似乎未被充分认知，当时许多人只是想当然地认为它总能以某种方式运作。

This weakness did not appear to be well understood in 2014, with many people just assuming it could work somehow.

有限的扩展性收益：使用侧链的益处可能因应用场景而异。

Limited Scaling Benefits The benefits of using a side chain may vary depending on the use case.

例如，若想构建分布式交易所，每个报价、询价和撮合都可能需要主链的全部安全保障。

For example, if one wants to build a distributed exchange, every bid, offer, and match may require all the security guarantees of the main chain.

由于交易所上每个用户的每个操作都如此频繁地使用主链，侧链系统的扩展优势可能极其有限。

With this much main chain usage for every possible action of every user on the Exchange, the scaling advantages of the side chain system may be extremely limited.

直接在链上提交报价可能仅占用约90字节，而存储订单信息的哈希值及其识别所需的结构和开销在链上可能约为50字节。

Submitting a bid on chain natively may only use around 90 bytes, while storing a hash of the order information and the structure and overhead around it necessary to be identified could be around 50 bytes on chain.

所以节省的空间并不多。

So not much of a space saving.

2014年3月，Counterparty开发者XNova阐述了他反对侧链观点的理由：此外，除非我有所遗漏，我们仍需从第二条区块链的区块中解析数据（假设其至少是比特币或比特币衍生实现）才能获取存储的数据。

In March 2014, counterparty developer XNova outlined his opposition to the side chain's point as follows: Moreover, unless I'm overlooking something here, we would still need to parse out the data from the blocks in that second blockchain assuming it's a Bitcoin or a Bitcoin derivative implementation at least, to get our stored data.

因此这将无法实现SPV类型的Counterparty客户端（即Counterparty相较于染色币功能的优势），反而会降低Counterparty交易的安全性。

So it would not enable SPV type counterparty clients for what counterparty offers over colored coin functionality, It would lessen security of counterparty transactions.

这将极大增加实现复杂度，唯一存疑的收益仅是区块链存储需求的略微减少。

It would greatly increase the complexity of the implementation the only dubious benefit would be the slight lessening our storage requirements on the blockchain, I.

即每笔交易可能减少20到40字节。

E, maybe 20 to 40 bytes less per transaction.

我实在看不出这有什么意义。

I just don't see how this would make any sense here.

还有一点。

One more point.

Counterparty能为比特币带来巨大收益，尤其当以太坊及其他类似非比特币的元2.0类代币出现时，这点将更为明显。

Counterparty can bring immense benefits to Bitcoin, and this will especially become more apparent if or as Ethereum and other similar non Bitcoin Meta two point o type coins enter the picture.

我个人认为，至少在比特币生态系统中，可能需要具备此类功能的产品，才能有效与以太坊及其未来的功能列表和吸引力竞争，否则就有可能被淘汰——至少在投资者和金融市场运营商眼中如此。这些功能能够随着比特币获得更多认可、信任和心智份额，为生态系统带来数十亿甚至数万亿的资金。

My personal feeling here, at least, is that Bitcoin may very well need offerings in the ecosystem with this kind of functionality to effectively compete with Ethereum and future crowds feature list and draws, or risk becoming obsoleted, at least among investors and financial market operators, which offer the ability to bring billions and even trillions into the Bitcoin ecosystem as it gains more recognition, trust, and mindshare with them.

似乎一些支持侧链解决方案的人对许多Dapp应用并不特别感兴趣，也没有进行过尝试。

It seems that some of the people arguing in favor of sidechains as a solution were not particularly interested in many of the Dapp applications, nor had they experimented with them.

因此，他们从未深入思考过构建分布式交易所的复杂性，以及几乎每个用户的每个操作都需要安全保障的问题。

Therefore, they never thought through the complexities of building a distributed exchange and how almost every single action from every user requires security.

大多数比特币开发者对自己感兴趣的内容相当开放，也明确知道自己想要什么：抗审查的货币、非政治性货币、电子现金等。

Most Bitcoin developers seemed quite open about what they are interested in and clear about what they want: censorship resistant money, non political money, electronic cash, etc.

结论是，2014年后，大多数对DApp感兴趣的开发者都专注于在以太坊或其他系统上构建，而非比特币。

Conclusion After around 2014, most developers interested in DApps focused on building on Ethereum or other systems, not on Bitcoin.

以太坊随后获得了开发者兴趣和势头的临界质量，而比特币上的DApp开发则微乎其微。

Ethereum then achieved a critical mass of developer interest and momentum, and DApp development on Bitcoin was minimal.

本文的关键点在于强调，其主要驱动力并不一定是费用或以太坊虚拟机及其更强的技术能力。

The key point of this article is to emphasize that the main driver for this was not necessarily fees or Ethereum's virtual machine and Ethereum's stronger technical capabilities.

仅仅是因为许多比特币支持者和开发者不希望比特币上有DApp，他们对这些功能不感兴趣。

It is simply that many Bitcoiners and Bitcoin developers did not want DApps on Bitcoin, and they were not interested in these features.

无论好坏，一些开发者有意将许多DApp开发者拒之门外。

For better or for worse, some developers deliberately pushed many of these DApp developers away.

一些比特币支持者认为，大多数DApp活动与不可持续的骗局有关，或者出于安全等原因，这些活动在比特币上是不受欢迎的。

Some Bitcoiners believe that most of the DApp activity is related to unsustainable scams, or that this activity is undesirable on Bitcoin for security or other reasons.

与此同时，一些山寨币的推广者可能夸大了所谓OpReturn战争的影响和意义，以推动他们新兴的链。

At the same time, some promoters of alternative coins may have exaggerated the impact and significance of the so called OpReturn wars to boost their burgeoning chains.

许多人的观点自2014年以来已经发生了变化。

The views of many people have changed since 2014.

比特币需要交易手续费才能生存。

Bitcoin needs transaction fees to survive.

在2016年后的环境中，我们有许多满区块和相对较高的手续费，人们更普遍认识到任何支付手续费的交易都是合法的。

In the post-twenty sixteen environment, in which we have many full blocks and somewhat higher fees, it is more widely appreciated that any fee paying transaction is legitimate.

以太坊上某些dApp，如Uniswap这类交易所，或Aave、Compound这类借贷协议，已被证明在一定程度上既成功又有趣。

Certain dApps on Ethereum such as exchanges like Uniswap or lending protocols like Aave and Compound have proven to be both successful and interesting to some extent.

尽管如此，比特币持有者是否足够关心这些协议在比特币上的应用，更不用说是否有人会真正构建并使用它们，仍是一个悬而未决的问题。

Despite this, whether Bitcoiners even care enough to want these protocols on Bitcoin, let alone if anyone will actually build and use them, remains an open question.

好吧。

Alright.

我确实努力想找到开头提到的Peter Wella的那段引文，想直接读出来，但我没找到，而且我不想花一整天时间只为准确引用一段话。

So I've really tried to, find the Peter Wella quote that I mentioned at the beginning, so I could read it directly, but I am not coming up with anything, and I don't wanna spend all day looking for a quote just to be accurate.

或者说精确，我想这个词更合适，因为我清楚地记得它背后的主题或概念，这正是它让我印象深刻的原因，也是为什么我认为这是对这场大辩论双方立场的最佳诠释——关于比特币发展方向、比特币核心及参考客户端、节点问题的思考，实际上更是关于将垃圾邮件作为内存池政策决策的讨论，因为这显然还涉及其他问题。

Or precise, I guess, is the better the better term because I remember exactly what the the theme or the concept behind it was, and that's what made it stand out to me so well, is why I thought this was such a great representation of the of both sides of this this drama or this this big debate that's happening in which direction to take or how to think about Bitcoin development, how to think about Bitcoin Core and the reference client, how to think about the nodes, and well, really really actually about the decisions for spam as a policy decision in Mempool, because there are definitely other issues around this.

但我认为这是整个谜题中最核心的部分之一。

But I think this is one of the really core pieces of the puzzle here.

我这么说并非双关语，而是真正意义上的争论核心。

And I don't mean that as, like, no pun intended, but the the heart of the argument, so to speak.

他当时的观点本质上是：技术上无法阻止某人发送大于40字节或80字节的内容，而让他们使用可证明可修剪的OpReturn，比使用多重签名或其他更低效、更不理想的链上方式实现同样目的要好。

And so what he said was essentially, there's no way to stop the, you know, somebody from getting something technically larger than 40 bytes or 80 bytes or whatever it was, And it's better for them to be using OpReturn, which is provably prunable, than using something else like multisig or some less use or less efficient or less desirable use of the chain to do the same thing.

然而据说，他们似乎被劝阻不要大规模这样做，放宽OpReturn限制以提供所谓'更好的方式'来减少损害，实际上可能招致更多此类行为，因为这可能被视为一种邀请。

Said, however, they seem to have been discouraged from doing this at scale and loosening the op return in order to give them a quote unquote better way to do this to to not cause so much damage may actually invite much more of the exact activity because it may appear as an invitation.

就像在说：哦，这么做完全没问题。

It's like, oh, well, it's totally cool to do this.

就在这里做吧。

Just do it right here.

我们可能会看到更多不良行为，因为我们正在提交或修改政策以适应技术细节，而这在社会层面会产生重大影响。

And we could get a lot more of an undesirable behavior because we're submitting or changing our policy to match a technicality that has a big impact in the social layer.

现在，这段话确实很长，差不多有三句话，但这就是背后的概念。

Now, that is a very long this was literally like three sentences, but that that's what the concept behind it was.

我认为这很棒，因为它完美地总结了问题——正如他所说，比我简洁得多——即存在技术现实，也存在社会现实，以及仅仅假设某些技术元素才是真正重要的，而忽略了人性的一面，可能带来的社会经济激励后果。

And I thought it was great because it was such a perfect summation, as he said, far more succinctly than I did of the issue is that there is a technical reality, and then there is a social reality and a potential social and economic incentive consequence of just assuming that the technical that some technical element is all that actually matters and that there's not a human side to this whole thing.

在我看来，这是两种立场之间最大的分歧：将操作码返回提高到100KB就是一种邀请。

And that, in my opinion, is the biggest divide between the two different positions of this, is that raising the op return to a 100 kilobytes is an invitation.

这会被视为一种邀请，我们可能会看到十倍于当前的行为，甚至出现在铭文中，甚至以各种我们不希望的方式，整体情况会变得更糟，因为它会吸引一大批山寨币玩家和NFT人士，他们认为现在比特币不会妨碍他们了。

It will be seen as an invitation, and we are probably going to get 10 times the amount of the exact behavior, maybe even in inscriptions, maybe even in all the ways that we don't want it, that it all just overall gets worse because it invites a whole bunch of shitcoiners and a whole bunch of NFT people thinking that now Bitcoin isn't going to get in our way.

我觉得这篇文章有趣的地方在于，它似乎在论证说，以太坊、山寨币之类的出现是因为比特币玩家把他们推开了。

And what I found interesting about this piece is that it seems to argue that like, oh, well, Ethereum, like the shitcoins and all this stuff seem to have happened because Bitcoiners pushed them away.

但我敢打赌，很多比特币玩家会说：哦，原来这就是他们没在比特币上搞这些破事的原因？

But I bet there's a whole hell of a lot of Bitcoiners who would be like, oh, so that's actually why they stayed off of Bitcoin and they didn't do all of this bullshit on Bitcoin?