第099集 - OP_RETURN 信号与噪声

一项已实施超过十年、且始终存在明显争议的规定，突然被进行了大刀阔斧的修改——不仅取消了本就极具争议的限制条款，还试图彻底移除节点运营者可能希望保留该限制的任何配置选项。

Something that had been in place for, again, more than a decade and that had been a clearly contentious issue for the entire time was suddenly made a quite broad and sweeping change that not only removed the limit, which was going to be contentious, but is trying to remove the configuration option to keep the limit in any way that the node actually want that the node runner actually wants to.

没人应该对此感到困惑：这注定会引发激烈争议。

Nobody should have been confused that this was going to be horribly contentious.

从一开始便是如此。

It has been from the beginning.

大家好，最近怎么样？

What is up, guys?

欢迎回到《比特币之声》。

Welcome back to Bitcoin Audible.

我是盖伊·斯旺，一个比你认识的所有人都更了解比特币的人。

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

首先，在正式进入主题前，我们来看最新发布的《金融自由报告》。

And first off, before we jump into it, we have the latest financial freedom report.

这是人权基金会发布的第72期报告。

It's number 72 from the Human Rights Foundation.

如果你还没深入研究的话，里面有几个非常有意思的细节。

There's And a couple of really cool details if you haven't dug into this yet.

白俄罗斯和俄罗斯正在合作开发央行数字货币（CBDC），这个两国共用的系统将赋予他们对民众行为前所未有的监控能力。

So Belarus and Russia are actually partnering to make a CBDC, a system that both will use that gives them unprecedented control and surveillance over what everyone is doing.

具体细节都在报告里。

Details are in that.

俄罗斯还即将推出国营加密货币交易所，实际上只有超级富豪才能使用。

Russia is also launching a state run crypto exchange that literally only the ultra wealthy are going to be able to use.

我觉得很有意思的是，国家可以如此明目张胆地故意压榨普通民众，只为让富人更富，而人们却依然认为国家能解决他们的问题。

And it just I find it interesting how explicit the state can be in just in purposefully screwing over the everyday citizen at the in order to make the wealthy wealthier, and then people still think the state is going to be the solution to their problems.

不过好消息是，eCash在古巴的首次亮相非常有趣。

In better news, however, eCash has made a very interesting debut in Cuba.

Boltz现在调整了限额，并为noster zaps开通了一条特殊兑换通道。

Boltz has now changed their limits and has a, I guess, special swap line for noster zaps.

这样即使你在闪电网络和Liquid之间兑换，也能给别人发送21聪。

So you can send somebody 21 sats even if you're using even if you're swapping between Lightning and Liquid.

LightSpark刚刚发布了状态链实施方案，让你能进行快速、私密的链下交易，实际上是交换代币密钥。

And LightSpark just released a state chain implementation so that you can have fast, private, off chain transactions where you are actually exchanging keys to the coins.

想了解更多信息，可以通过下方链接订阅他们的简报，或者在Nostr上查看。

If you wanna find out more about this stuff, you can sign up to their newsletter at the link below or you can check it out on Nostr.

我就是这样跟进动态的。

That's how I keep up with it.

我强烈推荐。

I highly recommend it.

HRF是个了不起的组织，他们所做的卓越工作值得致敬。

And the HRF is just an amazing organization and kudos to them for the incredible work that they do.

接下来推荐的是BitKit——一款操作简便、设计精美的自托管移动钱包，支持链上和闪电网络，操作直观流畅。

Next up, if you were looking for an easy to use and beautifully designed mobile wallet that is self custody, on chain, and lightning that just works, and it's intuitive, BitKit.

BitKit钱包是个绝佳工具。

The BitKit wallet is a fantastic tool.

如果你还没试用过，特别是考虑到他们正在公钥领域的所有创新，以及即将推出的点对点和主权技术，你应该持续关注并试试BitKit。

If you have not tried that out, if you do not have that in your toolbox, especially with all the things they are doing with pub key and plenty of new peer to peer and sovereign tech to come, you should stay tuned on that one, and you should check out BitKit.

链接和详细信息，请再次查看节目注释。

Link and details, again, in the show notes.

好的。

Okay.

事实证明，OpReturn确实是一个极具争议的问题。

So OpReturn has turned out to be a really, really contentious issue.

有趣的是支持方表现出的天真，似乎没人意识到这是个争议话题，而且这种争论已经持续了十二年。不过我不想把话说得太早。

And it's kinda funny how innocent the supporting side is being, like, nobody knew that this was a contentious issue and that this hasn't been kind of going on for twelve years, but, you know, I don't wanna get ahead of myself.

这其实不是重点。

And I and this not that's not really the point of this.

我并不是要在这里抨击某一方，虽然我反对当前提出的修改方案，但这期节目的重点不在这里。

I'm not trying to, like, crap on one of the sides here because I am opposed to the change that is being proposed, but that's not the point of this episode.

所以如果你刚接触比特币不久，或者对此感到非常担忧，又或者你完全不知道该怎么看待这件事——毕竟可能是第一次听说'up return'这个词。

So if you are lightly into Bitcoin or this is worrying you a lot or you just don't know what to think about any of this because this is the first time you've ever heard the word up, return.

你完全有理由感到困惑，甚至认为比特币的末日将至。

You can be forgiven for being completely confused and also thinking that the end of Bitcoin is nigh.

但这两点都不成立。

Neither one of those things is true.

别担心。

Don't worry.

这基本上只有像我这样的极客才会真正关心的问题。

This is largely an issue that just extremely nerdy people like myself actually care about.

关于这轮辩论最有趣的是：虽然争论异常激烈，但引发这次讨论的具体问题本身对实际发展方向的影响几乎可以忽略不计——尽管比特币历史上已经多次出现类似的争论。

And one of the interesting things about this particular episode of this same debate that has come up many many times in Bitcoin's past is how contentious it is versus how nonexistent the explicit issue that has caused this to come back to the surface is in moving the needle either direction.

这也是我个人对反对立场态度强硬的部分原因。

And this is part of why I personally come down pretty hard on the opposing side.

然而，我读过大量反对当前比特币核心修改提案的帖子，其中充斥着完全错误的观点。

However, I have read tons of posts from people who oppose what is currently being proposed as a change for Bitcoin Core, saying stuff that is completely wrong.

不仅完全错误，而且与当前核心问题毫不相关。

Completely wrong and also not relevant to the singular issue at hand.

但我在支持者群体中也看到了完全相同的现象。

But I have seen the exact same thing from the people who support it.

或者他们提出的技术问题只展示了单方面论据。

Or they're bringing up a technical issue in which they're only presenting one side of the coin.

甚至歪曲了与本案无关的议题，这可能是故意为之，也可能纯粹出于无知。

Or just misrepresenting an issue that hasn't even really been part of this, which can maybe be on purpose or just completely out of ignorance.

因此我想借本期节目尽力拨开迷雾见真相。

So I wanna take this episode in order to do my best in separating the signal from the noise.

我希望公正呈现双方论点，因为我觉得真正诚实做到这点的人并不多。

I want to steel man both sides because I feel there's not been too many people to do that honestly.

我坦然表明自己的反对立场，但绝不想扼杀任何支持者的声音。

And I'm perfectly willing to note that I am opposed, but I don't want to kill anybody who's on the supporting side.

我愿给予他们最公平的论证空间，因为他们提出的技术担忧确实存在。

And I take no issue in giving them the fairest shake that they can for their argument because there are very real technical concerns that they bring up.

只是我认为这些并非全貌，我将尽可能诚实地呈现双方观点。

I just don't think they are the full picture, and I want to present both sides as honestly as I think I can.

希望到最后，你至少能对议题有更清晰的认知，或者坦然确认自己根本不在乎。

And hopefully, at the end of this, you can walk away feeling like you have at least some better hold on the issue or just safely knowing that you really don't give a shit.

好的。

Alright.

为此，我将整理一些帖子、推特话题之类的素材，引用那些提出实质性论点的人的观点，并尽力用简单的方式解释那些可能较难理解的内容。

So to do this, I'm gonna pull together a handful of posts, Twitter threads, that sort of thing, quotes from people who've just made an argument one way or the other that I think are actually substantial arguments and try my best to explain them in simple terms when they're a little hard to follow maybe.

技术讨论相当微妙，如果你没能完全理解也情有可原。

The technical discussion is pretty nuanced, so you're forgiven if you don't see the whole picture.

但我也想从双方角度讨论那些不断被提及却既不准确也不相关的论点——在我看来尤其与当前议题无关的那些。

But I also want to cover from both sides arguments that keep getting pulled out and thrown into this into the discussion that are neither accurate nor relevant in my opinion, especially to this particular issue.

那么问题是什么？

So what's the issue?

最近具体发生了什么让所有人都手忙脚乱的事？

What has explicitly happened very recently that's got everybody in a tizzy?

因为看起来80%的讨论基本上与GitHub上出现的实际问题无关。

Because it seems like 80% of the discussion basically doesn't have anything to do with the actual thing that came up on GitHub.

所以与其重温这十二年来反复讨论的宏观议题，不如聚焦具体细节。

So instead of refreshing the big picture argument that has been had for twelve or so odd years, let's get into the specifics.

刚刚发生了什么？

What just happened?

Op return是比特币的一个功能，允许人们在交易中存入任意数据。

Op return is a part of Bitcoin that allows people to put arbitrary data into a Bitcoin transaction.

但关键在于它明确标记这些数据不可花费。

But specifically, it makes it obviously unspendable.

这些显然是人们无需担心的数据——你不需要验证它，因为它与实际交易的所有权或确认完全无关。

This is obviously data that people don't have to worry about, you don't have to validate because it has nothing to do with the actual ownership or confirmation of the transaction.

它只是附加的。

It's just attached.

我可以放入一个食谱、一张图片，这都无所谓。

I could put in a recipe, an image, doesn't matter.

这只是数据。

It's just data.

十多年来这一直被严格限制在极小的数量内，并且关于具体应该是多少这个极小值有过极其激烈的争论，而显然最优的极小值就是这么多。

This has been strictly limited for more than a decade to a very small amount, and there have been extremely vicious debates about exactly which small amount it ought to be, which the optimum small amount is clearly this much.

如果超过这个量，我绝对会分叉这条链。

I will literally fork the chain if it's any more than this much.

另一个重要说明，这与共识代码无关。

Another important note, this has nothing to do with consensus code.

网络上的任何节点都可以将操作返回限制设置为它想要的任何值，它仍然会根据其策略接受任何交易，无论是否包含或多或少的任意数据，只要是网络上出现的。

Any node on the network can set the op return limit to whatever it wants, and it will still just accept whatever transactions according to its policy with or without, with more or less arbitrary data, just whatever shows up on the network.

这一切都与MIM拉取策略有关，简单来说就是：我的节点该如何处理网络上那些即将被打包进下一个区块的垃圾数据？

This all has to do with MIM pull policy, which is a great way of saying, what does my node do with all of the crap that's being thrown around the network that we're about to put in the next block?

基本上从一开始节点就能手动设置这个。

Nodes have been able to set this manually for basically the whole time.

那么被提议的变更是什么？

So what is the change that has been proposed?

完全取消限制，更重要的是彻底移除配置限制的选项。

Completely removing the limit, and then importantly, removing the option to configure the limit entirely.

所以现在没有限制，也没人能重新设置限制。

So there is no limit and nobody can put one back in.

如果他们升级客户端到最新的比特币核心版本，就无法手动设置它。

They cannot manually set it if they upgrade their client to the latest Bitcoin core.

他们将无法手动将其恢复为比特币历史上大多数时间所采用的设置。

They will not be able to manually set it back to what it's been for most of Bitcoin's history.

现在这样做可能有非常充分的理由，但也有理由反对这样做。

Now there are very good reasons potentially to do this, and there are reasons to not do this.

这次事件之所以迅速引发激烈争议，是因为他们刚在GitHub上发布，其中某些内容就显得相当尖锐——尤其是在这个长期存在争议的话题上，因为这并非首次有人提议进行这项更改。

The reason this particular incidence of this became so contentious so quickly is that as soon as they published this on the GitHub, elements of this seemed pretty pointed, especially on a topic that has been so contentious for the entire time because this is not the first time that this change has been proposed.

而上一次尝试时，结果也差不多是这样。

And last time, it went about this well.

于是许多反对者上GitHub解释他们反对这项修改的理由，结果被禁止参与讨论。

And so a lot of the detractors went up on GitHub and explained their opposition to this change, and they got banned from the discussion.

特别是比特币机械师（Bitcoin Mechanic）。

In particular, Bitcoin Mechanic.

完全有理由认为这是对反对者竖起的中指，那种'我们无论如何都要这么做，你的反对无关紧要'的态度令人毛骨悚然。

It was a perfectly rational assessment to think that this was a big giant middle finger to everybody who has been on the other side of this issue that sounded eerily like the statement, we're gonna do this anyway, and it doesn't matter if you disagree.

坦率地说，没有比这更适合引爆社交媒体的燃料了，于是我们就看到了现在的局面。

And frankly, there is no more perfect fuel for social media, and thus, here we are.

这就是本次事件引发争议的根本原因。

That is what has brought up this issue in this particular incident.

最后我想强调一点：很多反对这项措施的人都在回避但未能清楚表达的观点。

Now at the end of this, I really wanna hit a point that I think a lot of people opposed to this measure are dancing around, but maybe not properly articulating.

希望我能帮大家厘清这个问题。

So I hope that I can help there.

你可能听过有人说这只是个技术问题，也有人说这根本不是技术辩论，技术层面无关紧要。

And you've probably heard people say that this is only a technical issue, and then other people say that it's not a technical debate at all, that the technical side is irrelevant.

某种程度上两者都有道理，希望到最后能更清晰些。

Both are kind of true in a way, and hopefully, it makes more sense at the end of this.

好的。

Alright.

首先，让我们先排除一些糟糕的论点。

So to start, let's get some of the bad arguments out of the way.

第一，这不会增加运行节点的难度。

First, this will not make it harder to run a node.

大家都在说，在'你是否在链上存储随机数据'这个更广泛的语境下，这个观点是合理的。

Everybody is saying that this makes sense in the general context of, oh, are you storing random data on chain versus are you not?

这意味着我们会拥有一个更大的区块链。

Which would mean that we have a bigger blockchain than not.

确实，存储数据并维护区块链是一项无人获得报酬的高成本事业，你无法为此支付报酬，因为它容易受到攻击，这就是我们采用工作量证明的原因——你无法区分谁是真正的贡献者，谁只是一堆虚假机器人。

And yes, storing and being a good steward of the chain is a costly endeavor that nobody gets paid for, and you can't really pay anybody for it because it can easily be civil attacked, and that's why we have proof of work is because you don't know who's helping and who's not or who's just a bunch of fake bots.

运行节点必须是自愿的，而被迫存储大量无聊图片和垃圾NFT就是一种成本。

Running a node has to be voluntary, and having to store a bunch of people's dick butts and garbage NFTs is a cost.

这对那些节点来说是个负担。

It is a burden on those nodes.

然而，我们完全预期并希望区块能始终保持满载状态。

However, we fully expect and want blocks to be completely full all the time.

我们希望这些是货币交易而非无聊图片，但无论如何我们都希望它们始终满载，而且有严格的区块大小限制。

We want them to be monetary transactions and not dick butts, but nevertheless, we want them to be full always, and there is a strict block size limit.

这并不会改变那一点。

This does not change that.

因此，在我们所期望的区块满载的世界里，会形成费用市场。

So in a world where all blocks are full like we want them to be, there is a fee market.

无论这个限制是否存在，都不会影响运行节点的难度。

Whether this limit exists or not will not change how difficult it is to run a node.

区块链仍将以既有的速度持续增长。

The blockchain will continue to get bigger at the rate that it has continued to get bigger.

实际上有个更有力的论点——虽然我认为这也有点转移焦点——取消限制反而会让运行节点更容易。

Actually, there's a stronger argument, though I do also think this is a little bit of a red herring, that removing the limit will make it easier to run a node.

因为支持方的主要论据之一是：我们根本无法完全阻止任意数据被写入比特币链。

Because one of the main arguments on the supporting side is that we simply cannot completely prevent arbitrary data from being put on the Bitcoin chain.

这是千真万确的。

That's a 100% true.

我认为反对派多数人也明白这点，但有些人显然并不清楚。

And I think most people on the opposing side know this, but some apparently don't.

整个铭文风波应该已经把这个道理展现得淋漓尽致了。

The whole inscription debacle should have made this rather perfectly clear.

我们设置了OP_RETURN限制，但他们通过伪造签名（某种程度上）绕过了——这些签名甚至无法被客观判定为不可花费，但实际上就是不可花费的，用这种方式存储JPEG反而更糟糕。

We have op return limits, but they got around it just by creating a fake signature more or less that can't even be objectively determined as unspendable, but which is unspendable, which is actually worse to store JPEGs that way.

至少使用OP_RETURN时，你可以直接丢弃UTXO，因为知道没人能对它做什么。

Because at least with op return, you can just drop the UTXO knowing that there's nothing anybody's going to do with it.

而当前这种情况下，你却不得不保留这些UTXO。

Whereas in this case, you have to keep the UTXO.

对于小型设备来说，处理庞大的UTXO集是最耗资源的事情之一，因为你必须时刻在内存中追踪下一笔交易可能来自哪里。

And one of the most costly things to deal with for small devices is a huge UTXO set of where's the next transaction going to come from that you have to keep in memory.

因此在我看来，认为这会使运行节点变得更困难的观点，远不如认为这会使运行节点变得更简单的观点有说服力。

So in my opinion, the case that this makes it harder to run a node is not as strong as the case that this makes it easier to run a node.

而这正是设计目的的一部分，因为我们希望人们使用op_return而非铭文。

And that that's part of the purpose because we would want people to use op return instead of inscriptions.

然而，他们仍然不愿使用op_return是有相当重要原因的，不过可能会有其他人选择使用它。

However, there's a pretty significant reason why they still just wouldn't use op return, but somebody else might come in and use it.

这一点我稍后再详细说明。

But I'll get back to that point in a minute.

现在，这项提案的支持者做得太过分的地方在于，他们声称内存池政策完全没有任何影响，任何认为有影响的人都是愚蠢的、迷信的或被误导的。

Now, where the supporters of this take it too far is that they say, mempool policy has no effect whatsoever, and anybody who thinks it does is stupid, or occultist, or misinformed.

这种说法同样不正确。

That is also not true.

这就引出了默认设置的强大之处。

And this is where we get to the power of the default.

对此有个非常简单的论据：如果交易无法在全网传播，它们被纳入区块的可能性就会降低。

And there's a very simple argument for this, is that if things don't get around the network, they're less likely to end up in blocks.

显然，这并不意味着它们会被完全阻止进入区块，但根据网络采用这些政策的范围，它们进入区块的概率确实会降低。

Obviously, that doesn't mean they will be prevented from getting into blocks, but they will be less likely to get into blocks depending on the amount of the network that has adopted these policies.

这就是为什么默认设置在此扮演着如此重要的角色。

And this is why the default setting is actually such an important role here.

如果它不具备关键作用，他们就不会提议修改它——因为那根本不重要。提出这个争议性极大的议题会显得非常愚蠢。

And if it didn't have a critical role, they wouldn't be proposing to change it because it wouldn't matter, and this would be a really stupid reason to bring this up because, obviously, it's hugely contentious.

那他们为什么提出这个问题？

So why are they bringing it up?

因为默认设置很重要。

Because the default setting matters.

MIMPOL策略对网络中95%节点的影响至关重要。

It makes a difference on the network what the MIMPOL policy is for 95% of nodes.

Core团队的核心论点是：这种方法比使用虚假地址和在见证数据中填充任意信息的铭文方式更可取。

Now the core arguments for Core's position is that this would be preferable to the inscription method to putting in to using fake addresses and arbitrary information in the witness data.

另一个重要问题是关于轻微中心化——如果你的网络不传播包含JPEG的交易，这些交易仍能进入链中，只是会直接流向矿工。

Another big one is about minor centralization is if you have a network that is not propagating the transactions that have JPEGs, they can still get into the chain, and they're just going to go directly to the miners.

关于这点，Lob提出了这个观点，其他支持该立场的人也都在尝试解释这个论点。

So for this, this was brought up by Lob, a bit by everybody who's making the argument and trying to explain that position.

但我要专门读一下Seth关于隐私的帖子，因为他的表述更简洁明了。

But I'm going to read a post specifically from Seth for privacy because I think it's just a little bit simpler language.

第一部分的观点是：你无法阻止任意数据存储。

So whole first section is you cannot prevent arbitrary data storage.

这是事实。

That is true.

许多新的二层网络和扩容方案都需要在链上存储证明——这本质上就是简单的数据存储。

Many new l twos and scaling solutions would require storing proofs on chain, something that is that is simple data storage.

无论你在节点上运行什么，他们都能做到这点，因为决定区块打包的唯一实体是矿工，而矿工有明确的盈利动机。

They can do this no matter what you run on your nodes as the only entity who matters for block inclusion are miners, and miners have a clear incentive to make more money.

这个激励机制是比特币博弈论的核心，一旦改变整个系统就会崩溃。

That incentive is at the core of Bitcoin's game theory and cannot change or everything falls apart.

如果你对MIMPOL过滤器过于狂热，而所有人都运行可疑软件来充当比特币交易商标的‘白骑士’捍卫者，猜猜会发生什么？

If you go nuts with MIMPOL filters and everyone runs sketchy software to WhiteKnight as defenders of Bitcoin trade trademark, guess what happens?

所有人都会直接向矿工支付额外费用来发送交易。

Everyone just sends transactions straight to the miners for an additional fee.

小矿工将彻底失去竞争力，矿工中心化程度急剧恶化。或者他们会找到无法阻挡的方法，通过隐写术、在调整的公钥中隐藏数据、不可花费的输出等手段（基本上就是铭文），让自己的交易看起来符合标准。

Small miners can no longer be competitive, and miner centralization gets drastically worse, Or they find unstoppable ways to simply make their transactions look standard using steganography, hiding data in tweaked pub keys, unspendable outputs, etcetera, inscriptions, basically.

这样他们就不必费心直接提交给矿工了。

So that they don't have to bother with direct miner submission.

这不仅在技术上根本无法过滤，对网络扩展性的影响也会比现状糟糕得多。

Not only would that be literally impossible to filter, it would also be drastically worse for scaling than the current state of things.

因此我认为必须回归默认设置的概念，观察95%节点采取不同行为时的状况——这是本次讨论至关重要的部分。

So this is where I think it's important to go back to the concept of the default settings and to see what happens in conditions where 95% of the nodes are doing one thing versus another, because I think it's a really important piece of this conversation.

关于矿工激励的问题确实存在。

Now the issue about minor incentives is definitely true.

现实中我们已经看到这种情况——Mara公司提供的Slipstream服务，本质上就是收费让人绕过内存池，直接把垃圾数据塞进区块。

And we've basically actually seen this in the real world because Mara has this service called Slipstream, and it's literally a way that they charge people to get around the mempool and put garbage directly into a block.

没错。

Yes.

Mara基本上就是在公开宣称他们是货币体系的糟糕管家。

Mara basically advertises that they are shit stewards of our monetary system.

确实。

Yes.

这里也暴露了我的个人偏见。

This is also my bias showing.

显然，这很糟糕。

Obviously, this is bad.

你肯定不希望人们绕过内存池。

You don't want people going around the mempool.

然而，我们必须回到默认策略的概念，因为这个激励措施实际上也有另一面。

However, we have to go back to that idea of the default policy because this incentive actually has a flip side.

街道是双向的。

The street is both ways.

事情并非像玛拉单方面受益而其他人都倒霉这么简单。

It is not so simple as Mara just benefits from this and everybody else is screwed.

另外值得注意的是，目前链上的描述、JPEG图片等垃圾数据实际上正在自行消亡。

And also, it's important to note that right now, descriptions and JPEGs and all that crap on chain is actually dying of its own accord.

当比特币链上无事发生时，这些数据确实会占据重要比重。

It really shows up as an important volume in the Bitcoin chain when there's just nothing going on.

最初情况很糟糕，现在已经大幅减少了。

It was horrible right at the beginning, and it's petered out a ton.

我希望这种趋势能继续下去。

And I would like that to continue on its way.

但再次强调，让我们回到默认策略的概念，因为这里还有另一个因素。

But again, let's go back to the concept of the default policy because there is another element to this.

如果节点在网络上传播时没有接收到JPEG文件，那么当区块被挖出时，为了确认区块，它们就不得不突然向网络请求，因为它们手头只有一堆普通的比特币交易。

If nodes do not receive the JPEGs as they are passed around the network, in order to confirm the block when it gets mined, they have to suddenly reach out to the network because they get a they they have a bunch of Bitcoin transactions that are normal.

假设它们有个过滤器规定：如果你的见证数据超过200KB之类，我就直接拒绝处理，因为我不相信你。

And let's say they have a filter that says, if your witness is bigger than 200 kilobytes or something, I'm just not going to do it because I don't believe you.

我们在knots客户端上设置了这种随意政策之类的。

And we set this arbitrary policy on our knots client or something.

如果他们没收到那些JPEG图片，也不在网络传播时保留它们，而Mara突然发布一个包含1MB男性生殖器图片的区块——整个区块就只有这一笔交易。

Well, if they don't receive those JPEGs and they don't keep them as they pass around the network and Mara suddenly publishes a block that has a one megabyte dick just that's the whole block, and it's just that one transaction.

突然间他们不得不联系网络询问：这该死的生殖器图片到底是什么鬼？

Well, suddenly, they have to reach out to the network and ask, what the hell is this dick butt?

有人知道这笔交易是什么吗？

Does anybody know what this transaction is?

因为我...我没有这个数据。

Because I I don't have it.

于是他们不得不下载这张生殖器图片来验证区块有效性，才能继续传播给网络中的其他人。

And so they have to download the dick butt in order to confirm that the block is valid and so they can pass it on to other people in the network.

正如他们所说，这会损害你的节点性能，因为验证区块需要更长时间等等。

And as they say, this hurts your node because it takes you longer to validate blocks, etcetera etcetera.

虽然这其实无关紧要，因为你要么在前端要么在后端处理它。

There's also a slightly even though it doesn't really matter because you'd be doing it on the front end or the back end.

但由于人们需要在区块产生后请求更多次要信息（这些本应在交易广播时获取），网络带宽压力会出现小幅峰值。

But there's a slight peak in bandwidth strain on the network because people are having to ask for more secondary information after a block comes than they otherwise would because they would have gotten it when the transaction got broadcasted.

那么为什么我说这个讨论还有另一面呢？

So why do I say there's a flip side to that conversation?

目前大约每两周仍会出现1-2个孤立区块。

There is still an orphan block about once or twice every two weeks.

所谓孤立区块是指两个矿工同时产出了区块，导致网络部分节点收到其中一个，另一部分收到另一个。

Now an orphan block is when two miners produce a block at the exact same time, and part of the network gets one of the blocks, and part of the network gets the other block.

因此目前由于两条链长度完全相同，尚未达成共识，我们需要观察哪个区块将被优先构建，从而形成最长链。

And so right now, there's no consensus because they have the exact same length of chain, and now we have to see who is which block is going to be built on top of, and thus make the longest chain.

这些区块中，由于部分信息已传播至部分网络节点而另一部分相同，其中一个区块必须被放弃。

One of those blocks, since some of it got out to some of the network and the other the same, one of those blocks has to be let go.

因此某个自认为成功挖出区块的矿工将面临撤销，因为网络暂时未达成共识。

And so somebody who thought they mined a block is about to be undone because the network is not in consensus for a moment.

最终必然会有其中一个区块被优先构建，成为胜出者。

Now invariably, one of those blocks is going to be built on first and then that one is going to be the winner.

另一个区块将被丢弃，整个系统会像什么都没发生过一样继续运行。

The other one will be dropped, and we will continue on like nothing happened.

这是比特币的正常运作机制。

That's a normal operation of Bitcoin.

孤立区块随着时间推移会逐渐消失，但仍会不时出现。

Orphan blocks have fallen over time, but they still happen.

因此预计每年会有20到40个区块成为孤立区块，上限可能更高。

So you can expect 20 to maybe 40 on the high end of these blocks to get orphaned in a year.

让我们重新思考默认设置的问题。

So let's think about the default again.

论点是，如果大多数人或网络重要节点试图过滤，他们就会通过带外支付方式悄悄向Mara付款，这样该矿工就能获得更多收益。

So the argument is, if most people are trying to filter or a significant amount of the network is trying to filter, well, then they'll just pay Mara in the slipstream out of band, and then that miner will get more revenue.

没人会去找小矿工额外付费让他们把垃圾数据塞进区块。

Nobody's gonna go to a small miner to pay them extra to put their crap in blocks.

他们都会想找大矿工合作。

They're gonna wanna do a big miner.

确实，利润很薄。

So, yes, margins are thin.

这对大型矿工的盈亏线会产生可衡量的影响。

It can have a measurable effect on the bottom line of a big miner.

可能影响不大，但终究还是会有影响。

Probably not a big one, but nonetheless, a small one.

但关键在于。

But here's the thing.

如果我们能让大多数人运行节点，让大多数人构建自己的模板——我认为这才是整个问题中最关键的，因为矿工的去中心化程度越高，这个问题就越小。

If we can get most people running nodes, if we can get most people building their own templates, which I think is the most important issue in all of this, because the better decentralization we have with miners, the less this problem is.

如果网络中有95%的节点都在过滤这些交易，那么承担成本的就不只是节点了。

And if you have 95% of the network filtering out these transactions, it's not just the node that pays the cost.

Mara可能也要为此付出代价。

It could also potentially be Mara that pays the cost.

Mara会把包含无人认领交易的区块推入网络，而其他矿工则会提交包含主流货币交易的区块——毕竟我们假设95%的节点都运行了某种过滤器。

Mara is gonna put their block with transactions that nobody has into the network, and the other miner is gonna put the block with the monetary transactions that everybody has because we're assuming again 95% are running some filter.

届时就会演变成一场区块孤立的竞赛。

Well, there's gonna be a race over which one gets orphaned.

如果一个区块能极速抵达95%的节点，而Mara的区块因为其他节点需要花费时间下载大量垃圾数据来验证区块，只能快速覆盖5%的节点——Mara可能会因为使用slipstream协议而丢失他们的区块。

And if one can get to 95% of the nodes extremely quickly, while Mara's only quickly gets to 5% of the nodes because now everybody else has to spend the time downloading a megabyte of dick butts in order to validate their block, Mara might lose their block because they are using slipstream.

其实中本聪对此有过精辟论述，信不信由你。

There's actually a great quote by Satoshi on this topic, believe it or not.

原文是这样说的。

It says, quote, right.

节点会将交易保留在工作集中，直到它们被打包进区块。

Nodes keep transactions in their working set until they get into a block.

如果一笔交易到达90%的节点，那么每当发现新区块时，该交易有90%的概率会被包含其中。

If a transaction reaches 90% of nodes, then each time a new block is found, it has a 90% chance of being in it.

显然，目前网络状况与他描述的情形并不完全吻合，因为并非每个节点都是矿工。

Now, obviously, it's not quite the conditions of the network that he's talking about in this instance because every single node is not a minor.

但网络中有多少节点能更快获取哪个区块，以及它们验证和接受该区块所需的时间仍然至关重要。

But it still matters very much how much of the network gets which block faster and how long it takes them to validate and accept that block.

当然，Mara可能因为slipstream和在链上发布dick butts而获得略微更高的薄利手续费，但如果他们成为每年20到40个被孤立的区块之一，也可能损失一个区块。

And sure, Mara could have a little thin margin of potentially slightly higher fees because of slipstream and posting dick butts into the chain, but they also might lose a block if they end up being one of the 20 or 40 that gets orphaned during the year.

原本不会被孤立的区块现在可能会被孤立。

And a block that would not have been orphaned may now be orphaned.

如果我们极其恶毒且对此完全达成共识，每个人都以这个目标运行过滤器，实际上可以把看似Mara中心化的问题变成对他们这种链外操作的致命打击。

If we were extremely vicious and we were all on the very same page about this and everybody ran filters with that goal in mind, you can actually turn what appears to be a centralization problem for Mara into a kick Mara in the balls for doing this out of band.

完全有理由认为这种情况极不可能发生。

It's perfectly fair to argue that that's extremely unlikely.

我也认为这极不可能，但激励机制是双向的。

I also think it's extremely unlikely, but the incentive works both ways.

这与小区块支持者的论点非常相似：他们说我们会获得90%矿工支持，而你们只能守着节点永远等待区块。

It's a lot similar to the argument where small blockers said, well, we're gonna get 90% of the miners, and you're just gonna sit there with your node and wait for blocks to come in, and you'll wait forever.

这就是为什么所有人都会转向比特币现金。

And that's why everybody will switch to Bitcoin Cash.

但很明显相反的情况也同样成立。

But it was pretty clear that the opposite was also true.

你看，如果我们只是守着节点干等不切换，矿工现在挖的不过是些无人问津的山寨币，耗时耗力还成本高昂。

That, well, if we just sit here with our nodes and wait and don't switch, well, miners are now mining hours or days of a shit coin that nobody else is buying or accepting, and that costs a lot.

所以他们很可能最终会回到我们的节点网络，我们只需静观其变。

So they'll probably just come back to our node network and we can just wait it out.

虽然不完全相同，但确实有几分相似。

It's not exactly the same, but it actually is a little bit same.

支持方提出的另一个问题，我认为严重曲解了当前实际情况。

There's another issue brought up on the support side that I think is a real misrepresentation of what's happening here.

但我看到不少人都在提这个观点，说用户对比特币核心团队和开发者提出各种要求。

But I've seen a number of people bring this up, that people are demanding things of Bitcoin Core and the developers.

接下来我要读塞斯关于隐私的论述，并非刻意针对他。

Now I'll read Seth for privacy, and I'm not trying to pick on Seth here.

我其实很欣赏塞斯。

I I like Seth a lot.

我认为他的初衷是好的，只是我们在某些议题上存在分歧。

I think his heart's in the right place, but obviously, we disagree on certain issues.

但我觉得这个说法相当准确地反映了背后的思考逻辑。

But just because I think I think this is a pretty fair representation of kind of the thought process behind this one.

所以我要读一下这部分内容。

So I'm gonna read this section of it.

这种疯狂行为最严重的后果是：它必将加速耗尽愿意全职投入比特币开发的少数程序员精力，并劝退未来开发者——谁愿意为了提交简单代码修改而趟舆论浑水？

Now, the last major effect of this insanity is that it will absolutely lead to faster burnout of the few devs willing to work full time on Bitcoin, and disincentivize future devs from working on Bitcoin as they'll know they have to wade through the morass of public opinion just to get simple changes in a PR.

猜猜当开发者都不愿参与比特币项目时会怎样？

Guess what happens when less devs want to work on Bitcoin?

它会停滞不前，在软件层面变得越来越容易受到攻击，并且由于维护或开发软件的人手不足，其作为货币的实用性也会降低。

It stagnates, becomes more and more vulnerable to attacks at a software level, and becomes less useful as money because not enough people are maintaining or building the software.

现在这个情况，我记得是一个有教务长出现的短视频，但我不太确定具体是谁了。

Now this is where and I think it was a short video by with provost in it or I I don't I I can't remember exactly who it was.

但我看到其他很多人也提出这个问题，就像是在对核心团队提要求。

But I saw this brought up by a number of other people be like, you're demanding things of core.

真不敢相信你提出这个，你这就是在攻击他们。

I can't believe you bring this up and you're just attacking them.

实际情况根本不是这样。

That's not what happened here.

我的意思是，虽然我确实是个反垃圾邮件人士。

Like, there was no like, I mean, granted, I'm a I'm a I'm a anti spammer.

对吧？

Right?

我真的认为我们不应该以任何方式优化或迁就链上的低俗内容，即便我们确实无法完全控制这些图片。

I I really don't think that we should be optimizing for or accommodating dick butts on the chain in any way whatsoever even in the face of the fact that we can't really do anything complete about the picture.

但不管怎样，我并不知道有什么反JPEG的黑手党，他们潜伏在某个秘密电报群里密谋'今天我们要攻击比特币核心'这种事。

But regardless, I didn't know about any, like, mafia of anti JPEGers that were on some sort of secret telegram group where they all got together and they said, well, we're going to attack Bitcoin Core today.

事实上恰恰相反。

Quite the opposite, in fact.

当时没人知道发生了什么，然后比特币核心团队却因为一件我认为无关紧要的事把这个问题提了出来。

Nobody knew what was going on, and then Bitcoin Core decided to bring this issue up over something that I think will not move the needle at all.

我马上会解释为什么我认为这件事根本无关紧要的另一个原因。

And I'll explain another point of why it won't move the I believe it won't move the needle in just a second.

但这项已存在超过十年、且始终存在明显争议的规定，突然被一项广泛而彻底的变更所取代——不仅取消了本就极具争议的限制，还试图移除节点运营者真正希望保留该限制的所有配置选项。

But something that had been in place for, again, more than a decade and that had been a clearly contentious issue for the entire time was suddenly made a quite broad and sweeping change that not only removed the limit, which was going to be contentious, but is trying to remove the configuration option to keep the limit in any way that the node actually want that the node runner actually wants to.

基本上，没人应该对这将引发激烈争议感到困惑。

Basically, nobody should have been confused that this was going to be horribly contentious.

从一开始就是如此。

It has been from the beginning.

尽管很多人用其他论点与我争辩，但这其实很可笑。

And this is actually funny even though I've had a lot of people argue all of the other arguments at me.

事实上我在大部分辩论中都没有提及那些论点。

I actually did not bring those up in a lot of the debating that I did.

这是我在GitHub上发表的唯一评论，因为事态已经失控——显然这是预料之中的。

And this is the one comment that I posted on GitHub because it was already blowing up and getting out of control, which was obvious that that was going to happen.

看看这个PR（拉取请求）。

Look at the PR.

这显然会被解读为对所有所谓'反JPEG'人士的一记耳光。

It would obviously be interpreted as a slap in the face to everybody who is quote, unquote, anti JPEG.

但我的评论很简短，只为表达核心观点：

But my comment, really quick, just so that I can get my point out.

这不仅是个极具争议的问题（标准从一开始就要求不强制推行争议性变更），这种强行推进的做法会徒增对核心团队的不信任，更糟糕的是——在无人要求的情况下，仅为改变而改变持续投入时间和资源，是种严重的浪费。

Not only is this issue deeply controversial, and the standard has been since the beginning to not force or push changes that are controversial, and this is a horrible look that will create pointless distrust in core, but continuing to spend time and resources on this issue, making changes for the sake of making changes when nobody asked for this, is a profound waste of time and resources.

这只会让人认为核心团队不关心用户和网络真正在意什么，强行推进将极其不明智。

This is only showing people that Core isn't interested in what the users or the network actually care about, and pushing forward with this would be incredibly ill advised.

这绝非无关紧要的小问题，你们将因此引发比当前问题严重得多的连锁反应。

This is not an arbitrary or small issue, and you will start problems that are vastly larger than this in response to it.

我基本上还是这么认为的。

And I still basically think that.

那么，为什么我认为这不会真正改变那些争论的焦点呢？

And so so why do I think this won't really move the needle on all of the things that are kind of argued?

我完全同意，如果大家都使用OP_RETURN而不是铭文，情况会更好。

I completely agree that if everybody was using op return instead of inscriptions, that that would be better.

问题在于OP_RETURN仍受限于旧的1MB限制，因为它位于交易的不同位置，而铭文则存放在见证数据中——后者拥有4MB的权重上限且享有费用折扣。

The problem is op return is still limited to the old one megabyte limit because it's in a different place in the transaction, whereas inscriptions are in the witness data, which has a four megabyte weight, which means it's discounted.

因此从激励角度来说，当前任何制作重要规模铭文的人都不会真正转向使用OP_RETURN。

So talking about incentives here, nobody who is making inscriptions today of any size or consequence whatsoever are going to switch to op return in a meaningful sense.

他们是被激励的。

They are incentivized.

系统通过费用折扣鼓励他们将数据存放在见证数据中。

They are given a discount in order to put it in witness data.

这就是为什么我认为那些'宁愿让人们用OP_RETURN'的论调，和'完全不要JPEG'的说法一样可笑。

This is why I think all of the arguments saying that we would rather have people use op return are as silly as the arguments of we would rather have no JPEGs at all.

因为就像...我们终究无法阻止人们在链上存储任意数据。

Because similar to, well, we're not going to be able to stop people from putting arbitrary data on the chain.

确实如此。

That's true.

除非用户恰好想成为区块链的好管家并愿意多付点手续费，否则他们根本没有动力转向OpReturn。

Also, there's no incentive for people to switch to OpReturn unless they just happen to want to be good stewards of the blockchain and a little bit extra in fees.

但既然我们遵循'人们会流向激励所在'的规则——就像矿工、用户和节点那样——他们根本不会这么做。

But since we're playing the people will go where they incentive are incentivized to go just like miners and just like users and nodes, they're not gonna do that.

目前关于Citria存在很多争议，特别是Jameson Lop作为投资者这件事。

Now there's a lot of controversy about Citria in particular and that, you know, Jameson Lop is an investor.

有些人认为他在为Jameson工作。

Some people are like, he works for him.

我无法确认这一点。

I don't I couldn't confirm that.

我不认为这是真的。

I don't I don't think that's true.

我认为他投资只是因为他们在尝试构建一些东西——对于比特币来说能实现有趣的新功能听起来相当酷，而且他们需要存放任意数据的地方。

I think he just has invested in it because they're trying to build something, which arguably sounds pretty cool for Bitcoin to be able to do interesting new things, and they need a place to put arbitrary data.

他特别强调过，我在一个讨论串里问过他这个问题。

And he said specifically, I asked him this in a thread.

他明确指出Citria拥有可以使用的挑战交易机制。

He said specifically that Citria has a challenge transaction that they can use.

大概只有100字节或140字节左右。

It's only like a 100 bytes or a 140 bytes or something like that.

我记不清了。

I can't remember.

他们可以放在op return限制内。

That they could put in the op return limit.

如果取消这个限制，他们就能成为更好的管理者，就可以使用op return。

And if that limit was gone, then they could be better stewards, and they could use op return.

事实上，这个数据量小到不会对成本产生可测量的影响，所以他们使用这个完全没问题。

And in fact, that it's a a specifically amount an amount that wouldn't be a measurable difference in the cost, so it would be fine for them to use this.

但当我深入研究后，就连Citria的一位开发者也表示这基本上毫无影响。

Except that after I kinda dug into it, even one of the developers from Citria said that that would basically not move the needle at all.

这种情况几乎不会发生，或者说频率极低，不至于每个区块都出现40个op return替代铭文的情况。

That would happen almost never, essentially, or at least it would just happen so infrequently that it wouldn't be like there were 40 op returns instead of inscriptions every single block.

不会的。

No.

可能每两周或一个月才会发生一次，甚至会成为有人不得不挑战运营商的新闻，毕竟运营商没有动机这么做——只要有人能证明真相。

It probably happened every two weeks or a month or or probably be news that somebody had to challenge the operator because, again, the operators aren't incentivized to do it if somebody can actually prove the truth.

其他所有设计都在激励他们的大数据和零知识证明这些东西。

Everything else is just incentivize all of their big data, their ZK proofs and all of that stuff.

他们还是会继续使用铭文，因为这样成本低得多。

They're still just gonna use inscriptions because it's a lot cheaper to do so.

既然没必要，他们也没理由支付高昂费用。

And there's no reason they would pay a really high fee when they don't have to.

反对派还有个论点，他们总说人们会把非法数据、儿童色情内容之类的东西塞进链里，我们不该允许这种事。

Now there's another argument for the opposing side that they keep saying that people will put illegal data, child porn, or whatever it is in the chain, and we don't want them to do that.

当然，确实不该。

Well, obviously, yes.

我们当然不希望这种事发生。

Of course, we don't want them to do that.

但显然我们也无能为力，而且不做这个（限制）也阻止不了那些行为。

But, also, obviously, there's nothing we can do about it, and nothing about not doing this prevents that.

他们现在就能这么干。

They can do it right now.

他们现在就能做到，而且没有任何过滤器能阻止，尤其是当他们试图攻击这条链时。

They can do it right now, and there's nothing any filters or anything, especially if they are trying to attack the chain.

即便我们有100%的把握，即使所有人都试图严格限制链上允许的内容且没有任意数据，他们依然有办法把数据塞进去。

If we had a 100%, if everybody was trying to be completely locked down on what they allow in the chain and there's no arbitrary data, they could still just get it in.

虽然从哲学角度而言，我完全同意你的观点。

Even though philosophically, yes, I perfectly agree with you.

我确信每个支持这件事的人都完全认同这一点，他们其实也不希望这种情况发生。

I'm sure every single person who is supportive of this completely agrees with that as well, and they would rather not have it.

但事实是我们对此无能为力。

But the truth is there's nothing we can do about it.

回到我另一点，看看这引发了多大的争议。

But back to my other point, look at the controversy this has stirred up.

看看这个争论有多荒谬，因为这根本解决不了铭文问题。

Look how ridiculous this argument is when this isn't gonna fix the inscription problem.

我真的不认为这能在那个方面改变什么，实际上我认为它可能会大幅改变人们使用OpReturn的动机——为了新的或不同的目的。

I really don't think this will change anything at all on that front, and I actually think it has the capacity to change a lot in how many people are just using OpReturn for a new or different reason.

我马上会解释这一点。

And again, I will explain that in just a second.

够奇怪的是，这并非我所预期的。

And bizarrely enough, not what I expected.

在所有的人里，我认为乌迪对这个情况的原因给出了最好的解释框架。

Udi, of all people, actually has, I think, the best framing of why this is the case.

但在讨论那个之前，我想先谈另一个技术论点。

But I wanna hit a different technical argument first before we get there.

回到这个观点，如果节点没有这些交易记录，那么它们就需要向网络的其他部分请求获取。

So going back to the idea that if the nodes don't have the transactions, well, then they're going to have to request it from the rest of the network.

你知道，如果他们连‘鸡巴屁股’都没有，那你就得去要这个‘鸡巴屁股’。

You know, if if they don't have dick butts, well, you're gonna have to request that dick butt.

更重要的是，如果你的MIM池里没有而网络大部分都有，那你就不知道下一个区块会是什么样子。

And more importantly, if you don't have it in your MIM pool and most of the network does, well, then you don't know what the next block is gonna look like.

所以对你来说，可能看起来MIM池里只有大约200KB的交易量。

And so to you, it might look like there's only a MIM pool of, like, 200 kilobytes worth of transactions.

显然，我会支付每虚拟字节1聪的费用，这就是我的预估。

Well, obviously, I'm gonna pay a 1 SAT per V byte fee, and that's gonna be my estimation.

然后下一个区块来了，里面全是JPEG图片，你提交的交易一个都没被包含进去。

And then the next block comes in, and it's absolutely full of JPEGs, not even a single one of your transactions that you had got in.

你就会想：这些东西到底是从哪儿冒出来的？

And you're like, where the hell did all this stuff come from?

我的MIN池里根本没有这些。

I didn't have this in my MIN pool.

所以你得向网络请求。

And so you have to request a network.

啥？

What?

那些‘鸡巴屁股’都他妈去哪儿了？

Where the hell is all the dick butts?

请把它们给我。

Give them to me, please.

让我把它们放进我的区块里。

Let me put them in my block.

现在我估算手续费的能力受损了，至少是效率低下了。

And now my ability to estimate a fee is compromised, or it's at least inefficient.

但詹姆斯和洛普实际上有个关于这个实践问题的搞笑帖子，我们马上快速看一下。

But James and Lop actually has a really funny post about this particular issue in practice, so we're gonna read that really quick.

把垃圾信息挡在你的交易池之外。

Keep spam out of keep your spam out of my mempool.

你在运行闪电网络节点吗？

Are you running a lightning node?

如果通道对手方试图通过发布旧通道状态来欺诈你怎么办？

What if a channel counterparty tries to defraud you by publishing an old channel state?

那种情况下，你需要准确的手续费估算。

In that case, you need accurate fee estimation.

你的正义交易必须胜过矿工交易池里的那些混蛋。

Your justice transaction will have to beat the dick butts in miners mempools.

为了胜过那些混蛋，你的全节点需要了解他们以及他们的出价。

In order to beat dick butts, your full node needs to know about dick butts and what they are bidding.

如果你不了解那些混蛋，就会被他们坑惨。

If you're ignorant of dick butts, you'll get fucked by dick butts.

我得承认他说得对。

I gotta hand it to him.

这还挺搞笑的。

That's pretty funny.

但问题在于，这种想法认为存在某种完美的费用估算机制，或者它能如此优化以至于这根本不会成为问题。

But the the issue here is that the idea is that there's some sort of perfect fee estimation or that it would be so optimal that this wouldn't be a problem.

而这根本不现实，因为实际情况是区块生成间隔大约就是十分钟。

And that's just not true because for the simple reality that blocks are probably going to be every ten minutes.

但有无数种情况，你以为区块会在十分钟后生成，结果两秒后就来了；你以为还要等十分钟，结果却要等上一小时。

But there's a million different times where you expect the block to be ten minutes and it's two seconds from now, and you expect it to be in ten minutes and it's an hour from now.

当然，你根本不知道未来两分钟（甚至两秒钟）内会涌入哪些交易。

And of course, you have no idea what transactions are going to be coming in in the next two minutes or two seconds for that matter.

我之前遇到过整天手续费都几乎为零的情况，当时我只支付了每v字节2聪的费用就直接发交易了。

I've had it before where the fees had been almost nothing all day and I was just paying 2 sats per byte per v byte, and I just put that out there.

结果手续费突然飙到9聪左右，因为莫名其妙涌进来一大堆交易。

And it just shot up to like nine because this flood of transactions came from absolutely nowhere.

我完全搞不清发生了什么状况。

I had no idea what was going on.

我足足等了13个区块，最后实在等不下去就用了RBF（费用替换）。

And I had to wait like 13 blocks before I got fed up waiting and I did RBF.