比特币核心、OP_RETURN与拯救钱包之战——对话Matt Corallo

这是我们目前所知唯一能让任何加密货币实现规模化的方法——不仅仅是比特币，而是所有加密货币。没有这些依赖辅助服务的第二层系统，我们就无法实现规模化。如果你作为流动性服务提供商却无法阻止用户交易，那如何进行反洗钱？反洗钱要求一旦认定某人是恐怖分子就必须冻结其资金。无论你关注哪方面，几乎所有业务都不该像托管机构或汇款商那样被监管。人们最终还是会依赖托管机构，这情况更糟。

This is the only way we know how to make any cryptocurrency scale, not even Bitcoin, just any cryptocurrency. We cannot scale it without these second layer systems that tend to rely on these ancillary services. If you're an LSP and you can't stop the user from transacting, how are you going to do AML, which requires that you freeze their money if you've decided that they're a terrorist? Whatever it is you're interested in, almost all of the stuff needs to not be regulated like custodian, like a money transmitter. People are just gonna stick to using custodians, which is even worse.

坦白说，我们需要推动法律修改。这类问题一直存在，如果真被监管，我们就彻底完蛋了。

Frankly, we need to get the law changed. Like, always have these things, and if those get regulated, we're like really, really, really, really fucked.

彻底完蛋。一切都结束了。

With fucked. It's over.

没错。基本上就是加长版的那个意思——比如先回顾我们讨论比特币扩容的历史，再展望未来发展方向。对了，记得给你们选区议员打电话。

Yeah. So it's basically a little more long form of that, like, here's the history of how we talked about scaling Bitcoin. Here's what we have to look forward to going forward. And also by the way, call your congressperson.

马特你总是这么悲观，整天说比特币有多糟糕。

You're always such a doomer, Matt. You're always telling us how Bitcoin's terrible.

是是是。不过这次我确实真心感到兴奋，但前提是这项法案必须通过。

Yeah, yeah. I mean, for once I am actually genuinely excited, but we also have to get this bill passed.

你对法案通过有什么可兴奋的？

What are you excited about, about this bill passing?

不，实际上我真的很期待今年闪电网络会是什么样子。

No, I'm actually, I'm really excited for what Lightning is gonna look like this year.

嗯，那挺酷的。

Well, that's cool

对你来说。终于有一次了。是的。闪电网络一直是个漫长的苦差事，我们就是没能取得想要的进展。用户体验实在太糟糕了。

for you. For for once. Yeah. Lightning has been this long slog where we just haven't been making the kind of progress we want. Is that the UX has just sucked.

闪电网络的用户体验糟糕了这么久，很多人都理所当然地放弃了它。我完全不怪他们这么做。

Like the UX of Lightning has sucked for so long and so many people have written it off rightfully so. I don't blame anyone for doing that.

是啊。

Yeah.

今年终于迎来了三四个不同项目加上我们在螺旋上做的其他工作的成果。我特别期待非托管比特币的用户体验会是什么样子。

And finally this year is the culmination of like three or four different projects plus some other stuff we're working on the spiral. And I'm just like really excited for what that user experience of non custodial Bitcoin is gonna look like.

听你这么说真好，难得见你对闪电网络这么兴奋。

That's great to hear that you're excited about Lightning for once.

是啊是啊。不，我这次对短期内能实现的东西感到兴奋。

Yeah, yeah. No, I'm excited about things we're gonna have in the short term for once.

是什么改变了你的想法？你认为即将有什么会对闪电网络产生重大影响？

What's changed your mind on that? What's coming that you think was gonna make a significant impact on Lightning?

对，主要是一系列技术问题。这些都是我们多年来一直在研究、知道需要构建但尚未完成的工作。其中最直观的一个就是零手续费承诺交易。闪电网络这些交易在上链前会不断更新，现在我们终于可以实现零手续费上链了。

Yeah, it's a bunch of technical stuff. It's stuff that we've been working on, that we've known we needed to build for years, that we've been building towards but just haven't gotten there yet. So a big one that's easy to see is this zero fee commitment transaction. So Lightning has these transactions that constantly get updated before they hit the chain, and we can now actually put zero fees on that transaction. We can get it in the blockchain.

尽管手续费为零，我们仍需附加另一笔交易来支付费用。这需要比特币核心实现三个功能特性，终于在29版本中发布了。现在我们需要在闪电网络中实际构建它。这原本是比特币核心的一个大型研究项目，如今已成为正式发布的功能集。他们还在持续优化，这很棒。虽然涉及多个项目的海量工作，但终于落地了。闪电网络端的实现不会太复杂，未来几个月内就能实现零手续费承诺交易——虽然听起来不起眼，但能彻底解决闪电网络中那些诡异糟糕的用户体验问题。

Despite it having zero fees, we have to attach another transaction to it to pay for the fees, but this required three different features to ship Bitcoin Core that finally shipped in the last version, '29, I guess it is. Now we have to actually build it in Lightning. But it was a It was a large research project in Bitcoin Core, and now it's an actual set of features that they've shipped in Bitcoin Core, there's more work that they're doing to make it better for us, which is great and I'm excited about. But it was a ton of work from a lot of different people on different projects, and now finally it shipped, and on the Lightning side, can start implementing it, and it's not too wildly complicated in the Lightning side. Then within the next few months, we're gonna start having zero fee commitment transactions, which is while it doesn't sound like much, but it solves really weird, terrible user experience in Lightning.

具体有哪些用户体验问题？

What are the user experience souls?

在闪电网络中，'我的余额是多少'这个问题很复杂。用户看到钱包顶部显示带星号的数字时都会懵圈，所有人都会问'这他妈是什么？'

Yeah, so in Lightning, the question of what is my balance is complicated. And no user is like, oh, what's my balance? And they see the number at the top of their wall and it's like star asterisk. It's complicated. Everyone's gonna be like, What the hell is this?

气得直接扔手机改用托管服务。各种奇葩情况：比如有笔未广播的交易含手续费但尚未支付，所以要从余额扣除；手续费不断更新导致余额看似在变但其实没变；如果和通道对手方对手续费有分歧，通道会随机关闭，用户要支付更高费用，体验更糟——简直就是灾难现场。

Throw their phone away and use a custodial service. Have all this weird, Okay, well you have this transaction that you haven't broadcasted yet that has a fee and we haven't paid it yet, but we're going to eventually pay it, so we have to deduct that from your balance. And then, oh, by the way, we're constantly updating that fee, your balance is kind of changing, but not really. And then, yeah, by the way, if you disagree with your channel counterparty with what that fee should be, your channel's gonna randomly close, and now you're gonna pay even more a fee, and then your user experience is gonna suck even more. This is chaos.

这简直糟透了。糟糕透顶。所有这些问题都是协议层渗透到了用户体验中，本不该如此。它需要做到无缝衔接。除非真正做到无缝，否则没人会使用非托管的闪电网络。

It's just terrible. It's just terrible. And it's all these things where the protocol is bleeding up into the user experience, and it shouldn't be that. It needs to be seamless. No one is ever gonna use non custodial Lightning unless it is actually seamless.

这正是我们观察到的现象。比如你看会议上人们付款时，他们很可能用的是Strike这类服务，而不是...但对我来说...

And that's something we've seen. Like everyone, like if you watch people here pay at the conference, they're probably gonna be using like Strike or a service like that rather than, but for me as

我有个Cash App账户。我是说，我用它来付账单。

someone- I've got a rep Cash App. I mean, pay my bills.

对，你用的是Cash App。但像我这样只用Phoenix钱包的人，根本看不到后台这些操作。那对我这样的用户来说体验会怎么改变呢？

Yeah, you go, Cash App. But like as someone who, I just use Phoenix Wallet, I don't see these things behind the scenes. So how's it gonna change the experience for someone like me?

Phoenix钱包做得不错。他们做了一些信任权衡，稍微信任他们的LSP（闪电服务提供商），现在我们可以逐步放宽这个信任度。虽然是非托管的，但他们稍微信任LSP这点很好，我们可以进一步优化。更重要的是引入更多竞争。Phoenix不得不投入三四个工程师全职工作多年才达到现在的水平。

So Phoenix Wallet has done a good job. They've made some trust trade offs, trusting their LSP a little bit, which we can now start to relax a little more. So, you know, they're non custodial, but they trust their LSP a little bit and then we can start to relax that a little more, which is great. And then on top of that, more competition, right? So more, you know, Phoenix has had to invest whatever, three, four engineers full time for how many years to build Phoenix and make it as good as it is.

现在情况不同了，你可以直接使用LDK，随便选个LSP就行。市面上有多种LSP可选，接入钱包就能立刻获得有竞争力的产品。Phoenix需要收回工程师成本，所以手续费偏高。确实常有人抱怨他们的费用，这很合理。

Now we're getting to a point where it's like, okay, well, you can just use LDK. You can just use whatever LSP. There's multiple different LSPs, and you can just hook those up, use them, throw them in your wallet, and suddenly you have a really competitive wallet. Phoenix has to recoup the cost of those engineers, and so their fees are a little high. I mean, like people do complain about Phoenix's fees and rightly so.

这很糟糕，因为他们成本确实很高。你不能简单说'太黑了他们在宰客'，实际上他们就是成本高。我们需要更多竞争，通过竞争让费用降下来，让市场出现更多LSP选择。

And it's like, you know, it sucks because they're having really high costs. And so, you know, you can't really be like, oh, it's terrible. They're ripping me off. It's like, no, actually they have, they have high costs, but we have to have more competition there. And we have to get the competition so that those fees come down so that there's more LSPs.

我觉得我们真的快成功了。

And I think we're really getting there.

这很酷。因为你说得对，Phoenix上的费用确实高。虽然内存池基本上一直空着，但直接发送链上交易来使用Phoenix反而更便宜。对，所以这很酷。

That's cool. Because like, you're right, the fees on Phoenix are high. Like while the Mempool has been basically empty for however long, it's often cheaper just to send on chain transactions to actually use Phoenix. Yeah. So that's cool.

但你说可以做零手续费交易时，具体怎么运作的？谁来支付费用？

But when you say that you can do zero fee transactions, how does that work? Who pays?

对，对。这其实有点取巧，对吧？承诺交易本身是零手续费，但总得有人支付矿工费。

Yeah. Yeah. So it you're kind of cheating. Right? So so it's the commitment transaction itself has zero fee, but of course you got to pay the miner somehow.

所以你得挂接另一笔交易，对吧？里面有个输出项，然后你构建另一笔高手续费的交易立即花费它。这样整个包裹的费用就付清了。两笔交易加起来手续费足够，但包裹里的第一笔交易本身不付手续费。这就是为什么比特币核心需要做大量工作的部分原因。

So you have to hang another transaction off of it, right? So there's an output in it and you build another transaction that immediately spends it that has high fee. So it pays for the whole package. There's two transactions together that the whole thing together pays enough fee, but the first transaction in the package does not. And so this was part of why it was so much work in Bitcoin Core.

比特币核心历来是收到单笔交易就加入内存池，但现在需要接收两笔交易并判断它们能否一起进内存池。需要将它们作为整体转发给节点，也需要从节点接收打包交易。这实际上是对比特币核心交易入池逻辑的重大改造。他们为此付出了巨大努力，我很高兴他们最终完成了，因为这对我们非常重要，但确实是个大工程。

Bitcoin Core historically has, okay, it receives a transaction, it adds it to the mempool, but now it has to receive two transactions and reason about, can these two transactions go into the mempool together? I need to relay them together to my peers. I need to receive them as a package from my peers. It was actually a really nontrivial overhaul of the way Bitcoin Core reasons about transactions coming into the mempool. So it was a ton of work for them, and I'm happy they finally finished it because it was really important for us, but it was a ton of work for them.

那这个功能什么时候会随核心升级推出？九月还是下次更新？

So when will that be coming in the upgrade to Core in like September or whenever the next?

不，已经发货了。所以它已经在上一批里了。'29，我想是这个数字。

No, already shipped. So it was already in the previous one. '29, I think is the number.

好的，不错。你刚才提到Spyro，你正在处理一些事情。能说说你在那边具体做什么吗？

Okay, nice. And you said that Spyro, you're working on stuff. Can you talk about what you're working on there?

嗯，简单说下。我们正在整体审视钱包的架构。如今钱包总面临这个问题：人们想开钱包，想把钱包和鼻孔关联起来。他们想收到21聪的打赏，还想让余额显示21聪。但现实是：没有闪电网络支持，没有链上操作，没有ARC，没有roll up方案——任何方式都无法处理你这21聪的余额。

Yeah, a little bit. So we're looking at kind of the whole picture of a wallet a little bit. And you always have this problem these days with wallets where people want to open a wallet, they want they want to link it to their nostril. They want to get a zap for 21 sats and they want their balance to show 21 SATs. And it's like, okay, but no lightning, anything, nothing on chain, no arc, no roll up, nothing is going to work for your 21 SAT balance.

就是不行。特别是用户流失率高的情况下——很多用户永远不会收到超过21聪。

It's just not. Especially when you have churn, like a lot of those users are never gonna receive more than 21 SATs. Can

你能解释为什么这永远行不通吗？

you explain why that will never work?

我们根本做不出非托管方案。因为本质上，要称为非托管，你必须能随时提现离场。无论是需要关闭的闪电通道，还是需要单边退出操作的ARC，或是必须上链的微交易，亦或是被roll up运营商审查时需提现到主链——无论如何，要号称非托管和无信任，就必须能随时带着资金离场。

There's just nothing non custodial that we can do because fundamentally in order for something to be non custodial, you have to be able to take your money and go home. You have to be able to take your SATs, put them on chain, and go home. Whether it's a Lightning channel where you have to be able to close the channel, whether it's ARC where you have to do the unilateral exit thing, where it's like mini transactions that have to hit the chain, whether it's a roll up where like, okay, the roll up operator is censoring you, and you have to take your money and exit the roll up and go to chain. One way or another, if you want to call it non custodial and you want to call it trustless, really, you have to be able to take your money and go home. Take it to the chain and go home.

如果你只有21聪，根本做不到。差远了。至少需要300到405聪才能达到尘限值（具体取决于输出）。就算达到尘限值，你还得支付矿工费。所以必须持有一定数量的真金白银，才配谈无信任。

And if you only have 21 SaaS, you just can't do that. Not even close. You need at least whatever, 300, 405 to hit the dust limit, depending on the output. Okay, even if you hit the dust limit, well, you have to be able to pay the fees to get there. And so you have to have some real non zero amount of money before you could remotely call it trustless.

好的，你现在看到的是整个画面。你会想，我们有很多用户需要这21种SAT余额，而我们希望打造一个出色的非托管用户体验。Spiral的使命就是让比特币在不牺牲信任目标的前提下成为可用的货币。所以我们正在考虑，能否将两者稍微结合一下？能否采用一些托管服务，或者至少是可信的服务，与闪电网络结合，构建一个统一的钱包，根据你的余额情况在两者之间智能切换。

And so, okay, you're looking at this kind of whole picture. You're like, okay, well, have all these users who want these 21 SAT balances, and we want to build a great non custodial user experience. That's our mission at Spiral is to make Bitcoin usable as money without compromising on the trust list goal. And so we're trying to look at more, okay, can we marry the two a little bit? Can we take some custodial service, or some at least trustful service, and Lightning and build a cohesive wallet that uses both, moves you back and forth as makes sense based on your balance.

这很合理。小额资金会进入托管端，当达到一定限额后，就可以转移到非托管端。

That makes sense. So small amounts will go to the custodial side. And then as that reaches a certain limit, it can move across into the non custodial side.

是的。已经有很多钱包尝试过这么做。早期的Mutiny就尝试过。我们最近还聘用了曾在Mutiny工作的Ben Carmen，他现在正和Ben一起研究这个项目——我很欣赏Ben。另外还有其他几款钱包也在尝试。

Yeah. And there's a bunch of wallets that have tried to do this. Mutiny back in the day tried to do this. We actually recently hired Ben Carmen who worked at Mutiny, who's working Yeah, on this stuff with Ben, love Ben. And then there's a few other wallets.

比如我知道Zoos最近也添加了eCash功能，不过他们的实现方式还比较手动化。这说明业界已经意识到这种方向很有必要，我们必须承认非托管模式的局限性，同时在适用场景下继续推进。我们正努力让钱包间的切换变得极其顺畅。现在这个方案可行，是因为我们已经修复了闪电网络的许多问题——在闪电网络还不稳定时这么做是没有意义的。

You know, I know Zoos just added eCash as well. It's still pretty manual on their implementation. And so there's a bunch of wallets trying to do this, and I think it's kind of a recognition that this makes sense, that we have to have something in this direction, that we have to recognize the limits of non custodial while also still trying to execute on that for users where it makes sense to. And so we're really trying to make that easier for wallets, make it super seamless, And it really only makes sense now because we've fixed so many other pieces of Lightning, right? It didn't make sense when Lightning was super jank.

就像Mutiny遇到的情况：你把所有资金存入Fetty mint后转入闪电钱包，结果遭遇随机通道关闭，支付高额手续费，链上资金又难以重新注入通道——用户体验极差，用户就会要求关闭闪电功能，只保留托管服务。这并非他们的初衷，但当时闪电网络确实不够成熟。

It's like, okay, well, you know, this is something Mutiny ran into. Was like, you know, you'd have all your money, you'd put it in your mint, your Fetty mint, and then, okay, you would move it over to a lightning wallet, and now the lightning wallet would get a random forest closure, you'd have this high fee, now you have on chain money, it's like trying to move back into a channel, and suddenly the UX just sucks and people would be like, no, turn off the lightning part. I want to just have it be custodial and as fettiement. And that's not really what they wanted. That's not what they were going for, but that's what they had to ship because the lightning just wasn't ready.

我认为经过这么多年，闪电网络终于——终于要在今年准备就绪了。我们正在推进相关工作，保守估计是今年内完成，我个人希望下个季度就能实现。

And I think finally, Lightning, finally, finally, finally, after all these years, Lightning is gonna be ready this year. You know, we're shipping stuff. I say this year to be conservative. I'm hoping it's like next quarter.

哇，这真是个令人振奋的消息。

Wow. That's very cool to hear.

但我希望至少今年能实现。将这两者结合起来，我认为托管服务也有了很大改进。那些无需KYC的托管选项，无论是liquid、spark还是ecash之类的，都变得更好了。这些方面一直在进步，终于让我们能够打造出超级简洁、流畅且出色的非托管用户体验。

But I'm hoping it's gonna happen this year at least. And bringing these two things together, I think also the custodial services have gotten a lot better. The no KYC custodial options, whether it's liquid, spark, e cash, whatever. Those have gotten a lot better. And so these things have been progressing and they're finally getting to a point where we can really make a super clean, super slick, super awesome non custodial UX.

非常酷。我和Mutiny的Tony聊过几次，他对Lightning已经彻底失望了。显然他们最终完全转型了。你说钱包那一端会是托管或信任最小化的，那会是ecash那端吗？

Very cool. Mean, I've spoken to Tony a few times from Mutiny and he got super jaded with Lightning. Yeah. And obviously they ended up completely pivoting. When you say that one side of that wallet is gonna be either custodial or like trust minimized, is that gonna be eCash on that side?

我不确定。这要看情况，取决于钱包开发者的需求，取决于什么方案最合理。你知道，ecash一直面临的问题是缺乏铸币厂支持。

I don't know. Mean, it depends. Depends on what wallet developers want. It depends on what makes sense. You know, eCash has suffered with has suffered a little bit with the problem of just not having mints.

软件本身很棒，也确实有些铸币厂，但它们往往运营不久就关闭了，无法持续运作，因为存在法律合规方面的疑问。

You know, the software is really great and there are some mints, but they'll often shut down after not very long and they just don't stick around because there's some legality questions to running In them

可能因为它们属于资金传输机构。

the sense that maybe they're money transmitters.

对，它们本质上是托管服务对吧？至少在美国，如果你运营托管服务...

Yeah. Mean, they're custodial service, right? Like if you're custodial service, at least in The U. S. Or if you're servicing U.

为美国客户服务的话，政策圈和华盛顿普遍认为这就意味着必须执行KYC。显然这里存在法律问题，特别是服务美国用户时。或许可以在美国境外运营，但现状就是如此。

S. Customers, that generally means I think it's fairly well accepted in the policy space and in DC, that that means you have to KYC. Yeah. And so there's obviously legality questions here, certainly servicing Americans. Maybe you can do it outside of The US, but it kind of is what it is.

Spark是一个非托管但受信任的平台，这种划分很有意思。他们认为自己无需进行KYC认证，因为他们不是资金传输者——毕竟他们不托管资金。他们没有能随意动用你资金的热密钥，但依然享有完全信任。

So there's Spark, which is non custodial but trusted, which is an interesting kind of delineation there where their their view is that they don't have to KYC. They're not a money transmitter because they're not a custodian. They don't have a key that can come in and take your money. There's no hot key there. But it's still fully trusted.

如果他们修改软件并开始错误执行协议，违反协议规范行事，那么他们确实会突然掌握能窃取你资金的密钥。

If they change their software and they start implementing the protocol incorrectly, they start misbehaving under the protocol, then suddenly they do have keys that could take your money.

本期节目由纳斯达克上市的最大可再生能源比特币矿企Iron赞助。Iron不仅为比特币网络提供算力，还利用可再生能源为AI领域提供尖端计算资源。我们与创始人Dan和Will合作多年，对他们坚持服务当地社区和可持续算力的价值观印象深刻。无论您关注比特币挖矿还是AI算力，Iron都树立了行业标杆。详情请访问iren.com。

This episode is also brought to you by Iron, the largest Nasdaq listed Bitcoin miner using 100% renewable energy. Iron are not just powering the Bitcoin network, they also provide cutting edge computing resources for AI, all backed by renewable energy. We've been working with the founders, Dan and Will, for a long time now and have been really impressed with their values, especially when it comes to their commitment to local communities and sustainable computing power. So whether you're interested in mining Bitcoin or harnessing AI compute power, Iron is setting the standard. Visit iron.com to learn more, which is iren.com.

本期节目由比特币最佳购买平台River赞助。通过River，您可以设置零手续费定期定额购买，轻松囤积聪。等待理想买入时机时，River还支持现金余额赚取以比特币支付的日息，收益远超多数高息储蓄账户。River的核心优势在于安全——每月提供储备金证明，所有比特币采用多签冷存储。

This episode is brought to you by River, the best place for Bitcoiners and businesses to buy Bitcoin. With River, you can set up zero fee recurring buys, making stacking stats effortless. And while you're waiting for the perfect buying opportunity, River lets you earn daily interest on your cash balance paid in Bitcoin, which outperforms most high yield savings accounts. But what really sets River apart is their dedication to security. You have peace of mind knowing that River has monthly proof of reserves and holds all Bitcoin in multisig cold storage.

River提供美国本土电话支持服务。立即访问river.com/wbd开户，购币可获高达100美元比特币奖励。本期节目同时由Anchor Watch赞助。比特币冷存储可能存在的致命错误常令我们夜不能寐，这正是Anchor Watch的用武之地。

And with US based phone support, you'll always have someone on hand ready to help. To find out more about River and to open an account, head over to river.com/wbd and earn up to $100 in Bitcoin when you buy. That's river.com/wbd. This episode is brought to you by Anchor Watch. Now one of the things that keeps us Bitcoiners up at night is an idea of a critical error in your Bitcoin cold storage, and this is where Anchor Watch comes in.

Anchor Watch提供双重保障：时间锁多签金库服务，以及您专属的伦敦劳合社A+评级保险。您掌管密钥，Anchor Watch承担风险。无论是继承规划、租金攻击、自然灾害还是个人操作失误，都能获得全面保护。全保险托管费率最低仅0.55%，面向美国个人及企业客户。

With Anchor Watch, you're protected by two things. You have their time locked multisig vault, and you have your own a plus rated Lloyd's of London backed insurance policy. So you get to hold your keys, and Anchor Watch holds the risk. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, rent attacks, natural disasters, or just your own silly mistakes, you're fully protected by Anchor Watch. Rates for fully insured custody start as low as point 55% and are available for individuals and commercial customers located in The US.

请访问anchorwatch.com咨询报价及安全方案详情。说实话我一直没完全理解Spark——其实我早就想邀请Light Spark的Kevin上节目，但至今未能成行。能否简要介绍一下Spark的核心功能？

Speak to Anchorwatch for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage over anchorwatch.com. That's anchorwatch.com. I've never I've not fully understood Spark. Like, I've actually been trying to get Kevin on the show from Light Spark for a while, and we've just not managed to make it happen yet, but I will. But can you give me, like, a rough overview of what Spark actually does?

Spark是状态链理念的延伸，这个概念其实相当古老。状态链很酷，状态币也是，但它们存在一个问题——你只能拥有一枚完整的币，对吧？比如我持有十分之一比特币（以前常用比特币举例，但现在不太合适了），就是十分之一比特币。

So Spark is an extension of the state chains idea, which is fairly old. State chains were cool, state coins, but they had this problem of you just had one coin, right? So like I take a tenth of a Bitcoin. I used to use a Bitcoin example, but it doesn't make sense anymore. I take a tenth of a Bitcoin.

我把它锁定为状态币，然后会有一个操作员。这个半可信的操作员需要签署币的每次状态转移。这样我就可以把币给你，同时移交对应的私钥。然后你去找操作员说：'嘿，我拿到私钥了，咱们更新这枚币的状态吧'。

I lock it up as a state coin And then there's this operator. So whoever this semi trusted operator is, they sign every transition of the coin. So I can take the coin and hand you the private key to the coin. And then you go to the operator and you say, hey, operator, I've got the private key. Let's update the coin.

操作员就会更新币的状态。你们会进行一个交接流程：你获得新私钥，操作员删除旧密钥。他们向你承诺会删除旧密钥，发誓已经删除了。只要他们确实删除了旧密钥，作为前任持有者的我就无法再动用那枚旧币了。

And the operator updates the coin. You do a dance where you get a new private key and the operator deletes the old key. And they promise you they delete the old key. They swear they've deleted the old key. And as long as they have actually deleted the old key, the old transaction that I, the old coin, I can no longer access it.

如果他们没删除旧密钥，那就只能指望我自觉不动用那笔资金了。

If they don't delete the old key, then you trust me to not spend the money.

嗯。

Yeah.

这个设计很巧妙，但本质上你还是在信任——信任模型通常被解释为：你要么信任操作员，要么信任这枚币的所有前任持有者。实际上，所有前任持有者很可能就包括操作员本人。所以你终究是在信任操作员，必须确保他们每次都会真正删除旧密钥并完成轮换。

And so this was cool, but you know, you're trusting, you know, the trust model is always explained as like, you're trusting either the operator or all of the past owners of the coins. In practice, all of the past owners of the coins probably includes the operator. So you're trusting the operator. They have to actually delete the key every time, rotate it through.

这不就是尼古拉斯·格雷戈里一直在研究的那个东西嘛。

So this is the same thing Nicholas Gregory was working on.

是的。尼古拉斯·格雷戈里在Commerce Block时就有过类似版本。

Yes. Nicholas Gregory had a version of this at Commerce Block.

没错。他几年前上过这个节目，具体时间记不清了。我一直纠结的问题是：如何可验证地删除某些东西？

Yeah. So he came on the show years ago at this point. I can't remember when. And the thing that I always struggled with that is like, how do you provably delete something?

确实不行。目前计算机科学领域还做不到这一点。或许可以通过安全硬件令牌或某种安全元件来实现，即信任他们售卖的签名硬件确实按宣称的方式运作——但据我所知，这种技术至今仍未实现。所以你只能选择信任他们。

Yeah, you can't. You just can't. That's not a thing you can do in computer science today. There's probably ways where you could do like a secure hardware token, some kind of secure element, whatever, that would be like, okay, well I'm trusting that the hardware that you bought from them that they signed is actually, know, the hardware is working the way they said it is, but even that doesn't exist today to my knowledge. So you really can't, you're just trusting them.

好吧，但这显然是相对更可靠的信任形式，对吗？

Okay, but it's obviously slightly better form of trust. Is that right?

对，但确实更可靠。关键在于：传统托管方被黑客攻击时，你的资金就没了。这不仅是担心托管方卷款跑路的问题——

Yeah, but it is still better, right? Because as long as they're, so I think there are really important differences, right? So with a classic custodian, if they get hacked, then your money's gone. Right? Like that's one of your big concerns is not just the custodian took my money and the custodian turned out to be malicious.

虽然正规公司不太可能恶意操作，但仍可能遭遇黑客攻击或内部人员窃取数据中心数据等情况。

That happens. But with a well regulated company, probably not. But they might get hacked, right? And it might be an insider. It might be someone accessing the data center, whatever it is.

若Spark被入侵，他们可以更换底层软件，随着代币转移逐渐窃取资金——但这与传统模式仍有本质区别，对吧？

If they get hacked, they can take the money. With Spark, that's not true. They can get hacked and the software can get changed out from under them. And then slowly over time, as the coins move, they could take the money, but that's still a very different model, right?

这完全是另一种模式。因为如果你看看罢工、河流或Coinbase漏洞之类的案例，他们盗取资金的风险其实非常低。在我看来，概率可能连2%都不到。

So It's like a massively different model. Because if you look at like a strike or a river or like a Coinbase crack and whatever, the risk of them stealing the funds would be very low down. Like to me, that would be like a less than 2% chance or something.

当然不是

Sure, it's not

但黑客攻击才是问题所在。

like But the hack is the issue.

没错。我们一次又一次看到交易所被黑的情况。黑客可以入侵系统，修改运行中的软件，然后维持长期入侵状态，以便下周再次进入并窃取部分资金。但这两者有本质区别——因为入侵行为可能被检测到，他们只能拿到部分资金。所以这个模式确实更好，而且在他们看来这并不构成托管关系。

Right, yeah. We've And seen that time and time again with exchanges getting hacked. And so, okay, the hacker could break in, change the software that's running, and then try to keep a persistent hack so that they can break in again next week and then take some of the money. But these are two very different things because potentially they could be detected and then they only get part of the money. And so, yeah, I mean, it is a much better model and it doesn't make them a custodian in their view.

这就像托管方和可信实体之间的微妙区别——他们声称'我们没有密钥，不算资金托管，只是运行签名器，这个盲签名器。Spark不是托管，但Commerce Block曾经是。'

This is like this weird difference between a custodian and a trusted entity, and they're like, well, don't have keys. We're not custodying the money. We're just running the signer, this blind signer. Spark, it's not. With Commerce Block, it was.

那是个盲签名器，它甚至不知道交易内容。Spark其实是Statecoins概念的延伸，他们扩展了多值交易功能。Statecoins最初只能锁定0.1个比特币，交易也只能以0.1比特币为单位进行。

It was a blind signer. It didn't even know what was going on. So Spark is an extension of this Statecoins idea. They extended it with the ability to have multiple values. So with Statecoins, when it was like, okay, I lock up 0.1 Bitcoin, now we can only transact in 0.1 Bitcoin increments.

无法进行更小金额交易，实用性就受限了对吧？这让使用变得困难。Spark则构建了相当复杂的结构——在Statecoin底层建立交易树，可以把Statecoin分割成多个部分。当树结构过深时，你可以找Stakecoin运营商把深层树节点换成浅层节点。

We can't transact in less. So that's limited utility, right? It makes it kind of hard to use. With Spark, they have this fairly complicated structure, okay, underneath the Statecoin, you build this tree of transactions that can split the Statecoin into multiple parts. And then, you know, when the tree gets too deep, you can go to the stake coin operator and you could trade your like tree part to a shallower tree.

虽然情况变得相当复杂，但这并没有真正改变信任模型。它需要更多对运营方的信任，因为他们现在几乎总是代币的前任持有者。我明白了。但本质上还是相同的原则——他们承诺会删除密钥，只要密钥被删除你就安全了，他们也无法用密钥拿走你的钱。

Like, it gets fairly complicated, but it doesn't really change the trust model. It relies on a little bit more trust in the operator because now they're almost always the past owner of the coin. I see. But it's still kind of the same fundamental principle of like, they're promising they delete keys, and as long as they delete keys, you're okay, and they don't have keys to take your money.

嗯。你说按照他们的观点，可能遵循金融犯罪执法网络的指导方针，这不会让他们成为资金传输者。

Mhmm. And you said that that in their view and probably following like the FinCEN guidelines, doesn't make them a money transmitter.

那是他们的观点。

That's their view.

不过我们之前见过这种情况。我们目睹了Samurai的遭遇。最近关于Samurai的消息是，文森曾说过他们不是资金传输者，但这并未阻止州政府追究他们。

We've seen this before, though. We saw what happened with Samurai. Yeah. And what's recently come out with Samurai is that Vinson had said, no, they are not money transmitters, but it didn't stop the state going after them.

没错。而且下一届政府也不会罢手。你知道，钟摆总是来回摆动，而且摆幅会越来越大。因为向右摆多高，就必须向左摆多高，这是对等且相反的幅度，对吧？这真的让我很担忧。

Right. And and won't stop the next administration. You know, the the pendulum always swings and the pendulum keeps swinging higher in both directions. The pendulum will only swing higher in both directions because what goes right must come left and equal and opposite height, right? And so that really concerns me.

我认为毫无疑问下一届政府会试图利用这些情况做些文章。

And I think there's no question that the next administration will try to take advantage of some of this stuff.

所以你现在才穿着这件'拯救我们的钱包'T恤坐在这里

And that's why you're here wearing your Save Yes, Our Wallets

我们这里有一项新倡议，你应该访问我们的网站saveourwallets.org并联系你的国会议员。我知道这对比特币玩家来说有点疯狂，但退一步想想，我之前说过我对非托管钱包有多兴奋，以及我们将要构建的所有酷炫功能。在闪电网络方面，我们有LSP（流动性服务提供商）。你必须依赖LSP——它们虽不可信，但必须提供一定的流动性。

so we've got a new initiative here and you should go to our website, saveourwallets.org and call your congressperson. I know it's kind of wild for Bitcoiners, but I think, you know, to take a step back, you know, I talked about how excited I am for non custodial wallets and all of the cool stuff we're going to build. And there's on the Lightning side, we have LSPs. You have to lean on an LSP. They're not trusted, but they have to allocate some liquidity.

事实上，采用我们之前讨论的早期钱包模型，它们不需要像过去那样分配那么多流动性。这很棒，但它们仍需保持一定流动性。它们仍参与其中。但即便展望未来，观察超时树、ARC、roll up等技术及所有运营商，总有某个实体参与其中。我喜欢称之为辅助服务，它们必须协助系统运作。

And in fact, with the earlier wallet model we're talking about, they don't have to allocate as much liquidity as they used to. It's great, but they still have to have some liquidity. They're still involved. But even when you look further down the road, you look at timeout trees and ARC and roll ups and all these operators, there's some entity involved. There's some, this ancillary service is what I like to call them that has to help operate the system.

这不是托管服务。通常甚至不值得信任。某些情况下是，但通常不值得信任。但需要它们来维持运转。有时是去中心化的，有时是中心化实体，视情况而定，但总需要额外的东西。

It's not a custodian. It's usually not even trusted. In some cases it is, but it's usually not even trusted. But it's needed to like keep the thing going. Sometimes it's decentralized, sometimes it's a centralized entity, whatever, it depends, but there's some extra thing.

现在不只是把交易上链那么简单了。我们需要这些。这是目前所知唯一能让任何加密货币（不仅是比特币）实现扩容的方式。没有这些依赖辅助服务的二层系统，我们根本无法实现扩容。如果这些辅助服务被当作汇款机构来监管——顺便说这很荒谬——

You're not just putting transactions on the blockchain anymore. We need that. This is the only way we know how to make any cryptocurrency scale, not even Bitcoin, just any cryptocurrency. We cannot scale it without these second layer systems that tend to rely on these ancillary services. And if these ancillary services are regulated like money transmitters, which by the way is absurd.

它们根本无法合规。你不能一边说'我不参与你的交易，我不是托管方'，一边又像托管方那样执行KYC/AML（了解你的客户/反洗钱）。这从根本上就不可行。作为LSP，你无法阻止用户交易，怎么执行AML？AML要求你一旦认定用户是恐怖分子就必须冻结资金。

They can't comply. You can't say, Oh, I'm not involved in your transaction. I'm not a custodian, but I have to KYC AML you as if I were. It's fundamentally impossible. You're an LSP and you can't stop the user from transacting, how are you going to do AML, which requires that you freeze their money if you've decided that they're a terrorist?

你根本做不到，就是做不到

Like you can't, just can't

物理层面上就无法实现

do Physically can't do it.

这是不可能的。这些法规毫无意义，但我敢保证下一届政府还会尝试推行。他们会试图实施这些法规。如果真的实施，就意味着我们讨论的所有事情都无法实现。这意味着我们无法构建可扩展的比特币。

It's not possible. So these regulations don't make any sense, but I guarantee you the next administration is going to try it again. They're going to try to apply them. And if they do, it means all of these things we're talking about are not possible. It means we cannot build a scalable Bitcoin.

我们无法构建可扩展的加密货币。我们无法实现Rollups。如果你是DeFi人士，我们无法为你的DeFi提供前端。Coinbase无法运营Base。我们无法拥有闪电网络。

We cannot build a scalable cryptocurrency. We cannot have roll ups. We can't have know, if you're a DeFi person, we can't have front ends for your DeFi. We can't Coinbase can't operate base. We can't have Lightning.

我们无法拥有Arc。我们无法拥有任何类型的Rollups，没有比特币第二季，无论你对什么感兴趣。几乎所有这些东西都不应该像托管机构或资金传输机构那样被监管。这毫无道理。他们做不到。

We can't have Arc. We can't have any kind of roll ups, no Bitcoin season two, whatever it is you're interested in. Almost all of the stuff needs to not be regulated like custodian, like a money transmitter. It does not make sense. They can't.

但如果他们尝试，我们就无法构建这些东西，至少无法在美国构建，也无法向美国人提供。这些东西仍会被构建出来，只是会在美国之外构建。最坏的情况是，由于美国人害怕构建，可能构建量会减少。然后人们就只能继续使用托管机构，这更糟糕。

But if they try, we can't build any of these things, or at least we can't build it in America and we can't offer it to Americans. It will still get built. It will get built outside The US. I hope, in the worst case, it might not get built as much because Americans are afraid of building it. And then people are just gonna stick to using custodians, which is even worse.

但坦白说，我们需要推动法律修改。

But frankly, we need to get the law changed.

我们知道这是事实。就像Samurai案件后，Phoenix离开了美国，Wasabi离开了美国，这很合理。但Phoenix能在没有美国市场的情况下维持业务吗？也许可以，但这会让这些人困难得多。最终我们将失去这些工具。

And we know that that's true. Like after the Samurai case, Phoenix left The US, Wasabi left The US, that would make sense. But like, can Phoenix operate a sustainable business without The US market? Like maybe, but it's gonna make it a lot harder for these people. And so we're just not gonna have these tools.

而且无论好坏，美国之外的开发者也是少数。虽然可能不是大多数，但相当多的开发者都在美国工作。如果美国法律禁止发布这些东西，人们就不会去做。毕竟没人想坐牢，这对他们来说不值得。

And there, for better or for worse, there's also a minority of developers outside The US. Like most of the developers, maybe not most, but certainly a plurality of developers are in The US, working in The US. And if the law in The US says you can't ship these things, then people are not going to do it. Like people don't want to go to jail. It's just not, it's not worth it for them.

对我来说，为了发送一些非托管钱包而去坐牢根本说不通

The calculus does not make sense for me to go to jail just so I can ship some non custodial wallet

为了你。

for you.

我不会这么做的，很抱歉。所以我们需要推动法律修改。这很棒。司法部的布兰奇备忘录里明确表示，作为政策，我们不会起诉这类行为。

I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. And so we need to get the law change. So it's great. The Blanche memo in the DOJ where they said, look, we as policy are not going to charge this.

这不是正式裁决。如果他们执意起诉你，你无法在法庭上以此为据。我是说，你可以提，但这不一定...这特别涉及Samurai案。对，Samurai案，布兰奇。司法部发布的这份备忘录显示，副检察长明确表示：我们不会再起诉这类行为，这没有意义。

It's not a formal ruling. If they charge you anyway, you cannot hold it up in court and say, hey, I mean, you can, but it's not necessarily This is specifically related to the Samurai case. Yeah. The Samurai case, Blanche So the DOJ released this memo that said The Deputy Attorney General released this memo that said, Look, we're not going to charge this kind of thing anymore. This doesn't make sense.

但如果司法部内部有人坚持起诉你，你无法在法庭上抗辩说'司法部说过不会这么做'。法官会说这无效。他们可能会质疑，但这不是有效辩护。

But if some person within the DOJ does charge you with that, you can't hold it up in court and say like, look, the DOJ said they weren't going to do it and now they did. Judge is going say no. I mean, they might look at it. They might be like, oh, why are you doing this? But it's not defense.

更重要的是，现行政府可以随时改变政策。如果下届政府上台，肯定会立即修改。所以目前凤凰钱包能在美国运营是好事，但下届政府会迅速改变现状。我们必须修改法律，防止他们故技重施。

It's not a And more importantly, can be changed by the current administration. If they change their minds, it certainly will be changed by the next administration. And so, okay. It's great that Phoenix is back in The US for now, but the next administration is gonna change that real quick. And so we have to get the law changed so that they can't try this again.

好的。那么'拯救我们的钱包'具体是什么？能否逐步说明你们的计划？

Okay. So what is Save Our Wallets? What, like step by step, what do you

想怎么做？其实很简单。超级直截了当。国会现在有个法案叫《区块链监管确定性法案》，就三页纸，两页半还是双倍行距的。

wanna do? So real simple. It's super straightforward. There's a bill in Congress right now called the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. It is a three page bill, two and a half pages, double spaced.

你可以去读读看。完全能看懂。内容一点都不复杂。它就是说：如果你不是托管方，如果你没有能力接收他人资金，你就不算资金传输者。句号。

You can go read it. You can go understand it. There's nothing complicated in it. It just says if you are not a custodian, if you don't have the ability to take someone's money, you are not a money transmitter. Full stop.

就这样。法案就这么简单。我们需要推动它通过。而要让法案通过，必须让国会真正感受到压力。有些加密货币游说团体非常支持。

That's all. That's all it does. We need to get it passed. And in order to get it passed, we need Congress to actually feel the pressure. Some of the cryptocurrency lobbying groups are super on board.

Coin Center今年把它列为最高优先级。他们想推动这个法案通过。其他一些组织却更关注那些无关紧要的事。比如搞个比特币战略储备很酷，但如果三年后只剩托管钱包，那搞这玩意儿图啥？反正下届政府也会卖掉。

Coin Center has this listed as their top priority this year. They want to get this thing passed. Some of the other ones are still more interested in other stuff that matters way less. You know, it's cool if we get a Bitcoin strategic reserve, but if that means we only have custodial wallets in three years, what the fuck was that for? You know, the next administration is gonna sell it anyway.

就算他们搞时间锁，要是连非托管钱包都没了，那还有什么意义？

Even if they time lock it, I don't care if we have no non custodial wallets, what the hell was the point?

没错。今早我录了两期节目，两期都在谈监管套利，这就是解决之道。对，事情就该这么办。

Yep. I've done two shows this morning and in both of them, we've talked about regulatory capture and this is the way. Yeah. Like this is how it happened.

就是这样。所以大家需要给议员打电话，真的拿起电话，打给你的两位参议员和众议员。不复杂，花不了多少时间。我知道比特币玩家们肯定要在推特上喷我了。

This is it. And so we need people to call their congressperson, like literally pick up the phone, call your two senators, call your house member. It's not complicated. It doesn't take much time. I know Bitcoiners, I'm going get so much shit on Twitter.

他们会说什么，啊，统计学家之类的，随便吧。

They're going to be like, ah, statist and yada yada and whatever.

我不这么认为。我觉得人们开始意识到这类事情的重要性了。这个，我同意你的看法，这与比特币战略储备完全不同。虽然价格上涨会很棒，能让我们的资产增值，但我根本不在乎那个，我在乎的是这个。这个要重要得多。

I don't think you will. I think people are coming around to understanding how important this kind of thing is. This, like, I agree with you that this is very different to the strategic Bitcoin reserve. Like, while it would be great for number go up and it would pump our bags, I don't give a fuck about that like I do about this. Like, this is far more important.

是的。所以这个目前正在国会审议中。

Yeah. And so this is in congress at the moment.

没错。现在正在众议院讨论。这是由两党议员汤姆·埃默提出的，他是众议院多数党党鞭。

Yeah. So it's in the house right now. It's been proposed by it's bipartisan Tom Emmer, who is the house majority whip.

他很棒。

He's great.

他确实很棒。作为多数党党鞭，在众议院共和党这边是二号人物——给非美国观众或不了解的人解释下。那个有儿童性侵犯凯文·史派西的电视剧叫什么来着，《纸牌屋》。

He's great. He's the majority whip, which is the second number two position on the Republican side of the House for the non Americans or the people who don't know their And the job of what was the TV show with the child rapist, Kevin Spacey, House of Cards.

《纸牌屋》，对。

House of Cards, yeah.

那是他的职位。他是党鞭。总之，为了提供背景信息。就...而言

That was his position. He was the whip. Anyway, so just for context. And in terms

关于国会其他成员，他们对此的反应大致是怎样的？

of like the rest of Congress, what's the kind of, like, how have they received this?

是的。所以是他和那位我现在一时想不起名字的布朗克斯区民主党人，他们共同在本届国会提出了这个议案。在众议院这边，你知道我不是政策专家，你可以咨询BPI或Coin Center等机构。看起来我们在众议院这边有机会。

Yeah. So it's it's him and the democrat from the Bronx who I'm forgetting now who also co introduced it in this congress. And so on the house side, you you know, I'm not a policy person. You could ask BPI or Coin Center or something. On the House side, it looks like we've got a shot.

参议院那边会更艰难。坦白说，我们只需要让他们感受到压力。这事甚至还没进入人们的视野。其他法案占用了他们的精力，他们之前忙着稳定币监管，现在又有这个关于代币监管方式的整体市场结构问题。

Senate's going to be a more uphill battle. Frankly, we just need them to feel pressure. This isn't on people's radar even. Some other bill. They were busy with the stablecoin regulation, and then they have this whole market structure thing, which is about how tokens are regulated.

这对比特币完全没有影响。这些事情很重要，但都完全不涉及比特币。而这个议案会影响比特币。它还会以更深远的方式影响整个加密货币领域，但却几乎不在他们的考虑范围内。所以我们需要人们打电话告诉他们：听着，这事非常重要。

It doesn't affect Bitcoin at all. These things are important, but neither of them affect Bitcoin at all. This impacts Bitcoin. It also impacts all of crypto in a much, much, much bigger way, and it's barely on their radar. And so we need people calling them and saying, look, this is really important.

这项监管毫无道理。这些公司根本不可能遵守。这不是正确的监管方式。听着，我们不是说要完全取消监管。如果你是流动性服务提供商，你仍然需要遵守制裁要求。

This regulation doesn't make sense. These companies cannot possibly comply with this. This is not the right regulation. Look, they'll still have It's not like we want them to be totally unregulated. If you're an LSP, you're still going to have sanctions requirements.

你仍然不能与伊朗的用户开通交易通道。这点不会改变。相关规定依然存在。虽然能改变这点会很好，但那不现实。这种情况不会发生。

You're not going be able to open a channel with someone in Iran. That's not changing. That's still going to be there. It'd be great if that changed, but like that's not realistic. That's not going to happen.

这实际上只涉及资金转移、失效的立法和监管，而不是让这些事务完全处于无监管的混乱状态。因此我们需要人们打电话。我们需要人们向他们的众议员、参议员解释原因，非常简单，只需五分钟，拿起电话。你可以访问saveourwellness.org，输入邮编，系统会为你列出电话号码。我们不会记录你的查询。

This is really just about money transmission and broken legislation and broken regulation, not overall making these things totally unregulated, total wild west. And so we need people to call. We need people to explain to their house members, to their senators, here's why, just real simple, five minutes, pick up the phone. You can go to saveourwellness.org, you type in your zip code, it'll list the phone numbers for you. We don't log your queries.

我们不会保留这些信息。在数据传递给我们供应商前会为你做代理中转，所以无需担心。如果你愿意可以留下邮箱，我们有表格收集邮箱地址。之后我可能会给你发邮件。

We don't keep that information. We proxy it for you before it goes to our data provider, So you don't have to worry about it. You can give me your email if you want to. There's a form to give me your email. I might send you an email later.

也可能不发，但只有我会处理。是我的个人服务器。别担心，信息不会流向别处。未来可能会转到Mailchimp之类的平台，但现在请先注册。

I might not, but it's just me. It's my server. Don't worry. It's not going anywhere else. It might go to Mailchimp or whatever later, but just sign up.

请致电你的国会议员。这件事极其重要。这直接关系到未来几年我能否继续编写非托管的比特币软件。

Please call your congressperson. This really, really matters. This mean this is really make or break as to whether I can continue writing non custodial Bitcoin software over the next few years.

就这样。帮我这个生活在澳大利亚的英国人理解一下，给当地政客打电话真的有用吗？

And that's it. Help me as an English person who lives in Australia understand, does calling your local politician work?

在美国非常有用。真的有用。他们接到的电话并不多，但数量还算可观。当来电量多时，他们确实会在意。

In The US it very much does. It really does. They don't get a lot of calls. They get a decent number. Certainly when there's volume, they care.

这些人，这是他们的工作。对很多人来说这是职业生涯。是否应该允许这成为职业是另一个问题，但对他们中的许多人来说确实如此，而且他们想连任。所以他们通常并不清楚什么会影响选民的投票意向。他们只有一些民意调查数据，比如有人会打电话给上千人询问：你对这事怎么看？

These guys, this is their job. This is their career for many of them. Whether it should be allowed as a career or not is a separate question, but for many of them it is, and they want to get reelected. So they don't have, they generally don't have great information about what is going to impact people's votes. They have polling data where someone will go around and call a thousand people and say, what do you think about this?

但这只是冰山一角。然后他们面对的是成群结队的说客，却对民众的愤怒点毫无感知。所以他们真的只在乎转发量。在推特还拥有更广泛影响力、平台上政治观点更多元时，他们或许更在意这些，但确实会关注这些数据。他们在乎社交媒体热度，尤其重视你的来电——因为电话代表你在乎。

But that's only so much. And then they have a ton of lobbyists coming at them and they don't really have a feel for like what people are mad at. So literally they care about retweets. They maybe cared about it a little more when Twitter had a broader appeal, when it was Twitter and there were a lot broader political views on Twitter, but they do care about those things. They care about social media numbers and they really care when you call because calling shows that you care.

发邮件也有一定效果。但如果你拿起电话拨打，他们就知道你是真在乎。你花了五分钟时间参与政治活动，而这么做的人并不多。所以这就像工作量证明。

You can send them an email and it kind of matters. But if you pick up the phone and call, they know you actually care. You spent five minutes of your time to do something, to get involved politically, to pick up the phone and like not many people do. And so they they yeah. It's proof of work.

这证明你足够关心才会行动，证明你在关注。因为打电话的人很可能会追踪他们的投票记录，并在下次选举时据此投票。他们知道你在乎——你可能还订阅了邮件，会收到'你的众议员很糟糕''参议员反对这项提案'之类的邮件。归根结底这是参与度的证明，而他们通常缺乏信息渠道，特别是在某些小众议题上。比如你问美国人：你对《区块链监管确定性法案》怎么看？

It's proof that you care enough to do that, that you're paying attention. Because probably if you called, you're gonna pay attention to whether they vote, and you're gonna vote based on it next November in, you know, however many years, whenever they're up for reelection, they know that you care enough. Probably you signed up some email, you're going to get emails saying, your House member is terrible, your Senator is terrible, they voted against this thing. So it's just, it comes down to proof of work and they don't have a lot of information to go on usually, especially in some of these kind of more niche interests where like, okay, if you call an American and you say, Hey, what are your thoughts on the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty

法案？

Act?

这种议题根本没法做民调。所以涉及小众利益时，电话是唯一有效的方式。发邮件也算有点用，实在打不了电话至少发邮件吧，但请尽量直接打电话。

There's gonna be like, you can't do polling on this. And so when you get these kind of niche interests, people just have to call. That's the only thing that works. Sending an email kind of works, at least do that. If you really can't call, send an email, but please just pick up the phone.

这实际上无法纳入民调。那这个法案从何而来？是谁起草的？

It's Practically not log your poll. So where did this bill come from? Who wrote it?

据我了解主要是汤姆·埃默斯的团队，但根源还是...应该说根源是武士钱包事件。那些起诉实在太荒谬了——武士钱包明明在推特上公开教俄罗斯寡头通过他们的服务洗钱。

Tom Embers' staff mostly is my understanding, but it's really, yeah. Mean, it really came from the Samurai stuff. I mean, it really came from like just how absurd those prosecutions are where it's like, okay, look, Samurai was on Twitter telling Russian oligarchs to launder money through their service.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。他们太愚蠢了。这很荒唐。他们会被起诉的。他们最终被指控共谋洗钱以及其他多项罪名。

Yes. They were silly. This was dumb. They were gonna get charged. They got charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and various other things.

我不会为他们辩护

I'm not gonna defend

这是美国。按理说，你不应该因为发推文就被关进监狱。

This is America. This is like, you shouldn't be able to be put in jail for tweets.

当然，当然。但我想说的是，法律上确实需要考虑意图问题，恶意行为会带来法律后果。我不是律师，但在很多案件中确实如此。不过归根结底，司法部可以就相关问题起诉他们，而不是用那些明显荒谬的罪名。我们知道金融犯罪执法局调查后明确表示：这根本不构成资金转移业务。

Sure, sure. But there's, I mean, there's something to say, something to be said about intent and doing things with malicious intent has implications in law. I'm not a lawyer, but in many cases it does. But at the end of the day, the DOJ can charge them with things related to those issues and not charge them with something that is completely on its face absurd. And we know FinCEN looked at this and said, this is not a money transmitter.

这说不通。你们试图适用的法规根本不成立。本质上，对他们的指控是说他们从事资金转移业务，这意味着他们需要履行反洗钱和客户身份识别义务，还必须在金融犯罪执法局注册。他们本应该说：'嗨，金融犯罪执法局（或州资金转移监管部门），我是资金转移服务商，申请接受监管'。

This doesn't make sense. The rules that you're trying to apply here do not make sense. So fundamentally, what they were charged with is that they were a money transmitter and that this meant, okay, they had AML KYC obligations, but also they had to register with FinCEN. They had to say, Hey, FinCEN, or state money transmitter, I'm a money transmitter. I want to be regulated.

结果金融犯罪执法局回应：'不，这不合逻辑。我们不会要求他们注册'。可他们最终却因未注册被起诉。本该接受他们注册的机构都表示：'他们确实没尝试注册，但我们本来就不会接受，因为这根本不合规'。

Please come regulate me. And FinCEN said, No, this does not make sense. We would not expect them to register with us. And then they got charged for not registering. So the entity that they were supposed to register with I said mean, okay, they didn't try to register, but the entity said, No, we wouldn't have wanted them registered because this doesn't make sense.

然后他们因未注册而被罚款。这简直毫无道理，

And then they were charged for not registering. This makes no sense,

对吧？

right?

但话说回来，金融犯罪执法局的工作人员在下届政府中会更换，如果他们想改变，就会再次罚款，他们会更换金融犯罪执法局的人员。所以我们真的需要修改法律。

But again, who works at FinCEN is gonna change in the next administration if they want to change, they're gonna charge this again, they're gonna change whoever works at FinCEN. So like we really have to change the law.

大概时间非常紧迫，因为如果要通过，很可能是在特朗普政府任期内。

Presumably like time is of the essence there, because if this is gonna pass, it's probably gonna pass under this Trump administration.

是的。这意味着在未来一年半内，更糟的是，我们已经过了百日执政期。通常在美国，当总统、众议院和参议院全面掌控时，他们希望在头一百天内完成大部分重要事项。我们已经过了那个阶段。特朗普已经开始显现一些政治弱势。

Yes. And that means in the next year and a half and even worse, I mean, we're already past a hundred days. Usually in The US, when you get like a clean sweep of the president, the house and the Senate, usually they want to get most of their big stuff done in the first hundred days. We're already past that. Trump already is starting to show some political weakness.

人们对特朗普因各种事情感到愤怒，虽然与比特币完全无关，但比特币显然也是其中之一。这使他更难通过法律，也让我们想要的法案更难在国会通过。所以时间真的非常紧迫。不仅是我们希望在接下来一年半内完成，而是必须在一年半内完成，而且可能还需要更快。

People mad at Trump for various things, totally unrelated to Bitcoin, but obviously Bitcoin too. And that makes it harder for him to pass law and makes it harder to get stuff through Congress that we want through. So time is really of the essence. It's not just that we want to get it done in the next year and a half. We have to get it done in the next year and a half, but we also probably want to get it done faster than that.

所以时间紧迫。我们真的需要打电话。我们需要让国会议员了解这个问题。Coin Center和其他组织如BPI正在努力推动这件事，但很多国会议员不愿花时间与他们见面。因此需要选民打电话说明，看，这就是原因，这就是重点所在。

So time is of the essence. We really need to get calls in. We need to get Congress people educated about this. Coin Center and others, BPI are doing great work trying to get that to happen, but a lot of Congress people don't take the time to meet with them. And so we need constituents to call in and say, look, here's why, here's what matters.

这对我很重要。我会根据你未来两年、四年或六年的表现来决定投票方向。

This matters to me. And I'm gonna vote this way based on what you do right now in two, four, or six years.

你说一年半是因为你猜测特朗普会失去众议院或参议院，或者两者都失去？

And you say year and a half because presumably you're guessing that Trump loses either the House or the Senate or both.

哦，是的。毫无疑问。

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Without question.

好的。大家赶紧打电话联系你们的国会议员。

Okay. So everyone get on the phone. Call call your congressman.

Saveourwallets.org，非常简单。你可以暂停视频查看，就在这里。

Saveourwallets.org. It's super easy. You can pause the video. You can you can look at it. It's right here.

我也会确保在下方附上链接。好了，我们能进入比特币最具争议的话题了吗？

I'll make sure I'll link it below as well. Okay. Okay. Can we get on to the most controversial topic in Bitcoin?

当然可以。

Yeah, sure.

我知道你不想谈这个，但无论你称之为OpReturn战争还是戏剧性辩论，这件事确实激起了人们的情绪。也许我不该影响你的观点，就请你大致概述下整个情况吧。

I know you don't really wanna talk about this, but the OpReturn wars drama debate, whatever you wanna call it, has really fired people up. Maybe don't let me influence what you're gonna say. Just give me your kind of like overview of the whole thing.

确实。我是说，人们对往链上塞垃圾数据的行为有强烈反应很正常——无论是图片、任意数据，还是非金融数据。虽然如何定义这些数据存在细微差别，大家也有分歧，但无论如何，人们对链上存在这类数据有强烈意见是完全合理的。区块链是公共资源，我们谁都无权阻止别人上传内容。

Yeah. I mean, I think people rightfully have a very strong reaction to the concept of people putting garbage in the chain, people putting images, people putting arbitrary data, just not financial data in the chain. And there's some nuance to how you define that and people disagree, but whatever, like people have very strong opinions about that data being in the chain, and that's totally fair. The chain is a public resource. Hopefully none of us can stop anyone from putting stuff there.

这某种程度上正是比特币的意义所在。但问题在于人们的反应很激烈，这完全可以理解。比特币核心团队提议取消某些常用数据类型的限制（与常规数据嵌入方式无关），这让很多人觉得他们是在放弃抗争。就像比特币核心团队认输了一样，这种态度确实让人恼火——虽然这种情绪也合情合理。

That's kind of the whole point of Bitcoin, but the issue is really that people have strong answers. It's totally understandable, and I understand why people are frustrated. Bitcoin Core proposing to remove some limits on some types of data, relevant to the types of data people generally use, not relevant to the ways people generally try to embed data in the chain, but some types of data felt to, I think a lot of people like kind of giving up on the fight. It's like Bitcoin Core is like giving up, trying to fight this stuff and like, that's bad and like screw them and like, that's totally fair. Like, yeah, I mean, I get that.

显然比特币核心团队担心如果不做这个改动会引发更严重的后果。人们完全有理由（至少逻辑上）认为这不会影响链上数据——毕竟大家现在都利用见证折扣，通过铭文嵌入数据比OpReturn便宜四倍，所以这种趋势很可能会持续。我理解人们的愤怒，但必须承认这个改动不会影响数据。如果人们开始大量使用这些链外中继服务，反而会带来更大风险。

I think Bitcoin Core obviously was worried about much worse implications if they didn't make this change. I think people quite rightly, or at least certainly quite logically, have a very solid argument that this isn't going to impact data in the chain because people, again, people use the witness discount, right? It's 4X cheaper to embed data via inscriptions than via op returns. And so people are probably gonna keep doing that. So I get why people were mad, but I think like you have to recognize that this it the it's not gonna impact the data, and there are much larger risks here if people start transacting very heavily via these out of band relay services.

没错，那边的风险确实非常巨大。

Yes. I mean, it's just really massive risks there.

单就矿工中心化而言确实如此。如果只有Marathon提供Slipstream服务，他们的增长速度会与普通矿工完全不同...

In terms of just miner centralization. Yeah. Because if Marathon's the only one offering like Slipstream, they just grow at a different rate to the regular miners using Yeah, the

完全同意。不仅如此，我觉得人们低估了这类事情的影响——比特币价格波动剧烈，大多数矿工的利润也随之大幅波动。

totally. And not just that, I mean, I think people underestimate how big an impact that kind of thing can have because obviously the Bitcoin price varies wildly. And so the margin of most miners varies wildly with it.

但是

But

从整体和长期来看，尤其是考虑到我们预计比特币价格波动性会有所降低，矿工的利润空间将会变得极其微薄。所以，假设你的利润已经很薄，而你的收入仅比同行高出2%，这看起来微不足道对吧？仅仅2%的收入优势。但如果你的利润率只有几个百分点，那么这2%就意味着你的利润可能是竞争对手的数倍或两位数百分比的增长，这将极大影响你是否有能力购买最新一代芯片、投资新矿场等决策。你的增长速度会因此天差地别。

in the aggregate and the long term, and certainly over the long term, as we expect the Bitcoin price to be a little less volatile, we expect miners to have very, very, very thin margins. And so, okay, if you have a really thin margin and you're making 2% more revenue than everyone else, it's not much, right? 2%, only 2% more revenue. But if your margin's only a few percent, well that's multiple X or double digit percentage more profit than your competition, which makes a huge difference into whether or not you can buy the latest gen chips, invest in that new mining farm, whatever. You're going to grow at a very, very different rate.

这些情况让我感到担忧，而且我认为比特币核心开发者们的忧虑远不止于此——老实说，我甚至没看到多少人关注这事。当然肯定会有人开始在OP_RETURN里嵌入各种数据，事实上已经有人这么做了。但就数据嵌入对比特币链的风险或损害而言，这不会改变什么。他们终究还是会使用铭文的。

So that stuff worries me, and I think Bitcoin Core folks, a lot more than, again, I just don't really see people. I mean, I'm sure some people are going to start embedding some kind of data in op returns. It's not like people aren't going to and that people don't, people certainly already do. But in terms of the risks or the damage to Bitcoin from data being embedded in the chain, isn't going change it. They're going to use inscriptions anyway.

本节目由Blockware赞助播出。你是想要现在持有1个比特币，还是几年后拥有2个？这问题听起来很傻。比特币挖矿是经过验证的有效积累方式，长期来看甚至能跑赢普通定投。Blockware的矿机托管服务让你无需动手就能开始挖矿。

This episode is brought to you by Blockware. Would you rather have one Bitcoin today or two in a few years from now? Silly question. Well, Bitcoin mining is a tried and true method to accumulate more Bitcoin, and over a few years, it can even outperform a normal DCA. Blockware's mining as a service enables you to start mining Bitcoin without lifting a finger.

Blockware包办一切：从矿机安保到低价电力采购，再到矿池配置。他们在全美拥有多个数据中心，是业内最可靠的挖矿合作伙伴。挖矿是获取比特币最高效的方式之一。点击描述区链接立即开始，提暗号"Bitcoin did"还可享每台托管矿机一周免电费免托管费的优惠。

Blockware handles everything from securing the miners to sourcing low cost power and configuring the pool. They do it all. With multiple data centers across The US, Blockware is the most reliable mining partner in the industry, and mining is one of the most efficient ways to acquire Bitcoin. So click the link in the description to get started today. And if you tell them what Bitcoin did send you, you'll get one week of free hosting and free electricity for every hosted miner purchased.

点击描述区链接或访问blockwaresolutions.com。本节目由CoinKite赞助播出。CoinKite生产市面上最安全可靠的比特币硬件钱包，比如这款Coldcard Mark4，专为比特币设计。

So click the link in the description or head over to blockwaresolutions.com. This episode is brought to you by CoinKite. CoinKite make the best, the most secure Bitcoin hardware wallets that you can possibly buy. So they have this one right here, which is the coal card mark four. They're Bitcoin only.

采用双安全芯片架构，源代码可验证，完全物理隔离设计，确实是你能买到的最好的硬件钱包。他们刚推出的Coldcard Q（就是这款）在保留Mark4所有安全特性的基础上，新增了全QWERTY键盘等多项功能。

They have two secure elements, verifiable source code, completely air gapped by design. They really are the best hardware wallet that you can buy. And they've also just come out with the cold card q, which is this one here. It has all the same security features as the mark four, but it has a few new features. So it has a full QWERTY keyboard.

如果你在听的话，这东西看起来像老式黑莓手机。屏幕大了很多，用起来方便多了。它配有NFC读卡器、二维码扫描器，甚至还内置了我超爱的安全密码管理器。没错。如果你没有冷钱包卡，那你就用错了。

If you're listening, this thing looks like a old school BlackBerry. Much bigger screen, which makes it way easier to use. It has an NFC reader, a QR code scanner, and it even has a secure password manager built in, which I really love. Yeah. If you don't have a cold card, you're doing it wrong.

不仅如此，人们还不断向我打听我身后这个。这是实时区块时钟，显示比特币价格是105,000美元。这也是CoinKite的产品。快去coinkite.com看看吧。

Not only that, people keep asking me about this behind me. This is the block clock right now. It's telling me it's a $105,000 Bitcoin. That's also made by CoinKite. So head over to coinkite.com.

使用优惠码WBD可享全店95折。所以访问coinkite.com并使用代码WBD。我认为这场争论中至少一个关键问题在于过滤器。从机制海洋派的观点看，应该修复过滤器、增加数量——就像偶尔有垃圾邮件进收件箱不代表过滤器失效。但垃圾邮件过滤器真的有用吗？

If you use code WBD, you get 5% off store wide. So go to coinkite.com and use code WBD. So I think, like, probably at least one of the key sort of issues in this argument is around filters. And on the kind of mechanic ocean side of the argument, it's fix the filters, put more of them in just because like occasional spam emails get into your inbox doesn't mean that spam filters don't work. But do spam filters actually work?

确实。人们正确指出了这会增加一定成本对吧？当全网都运行Bitcoin Core且其转发策略会拒绝某些交易类型时，要让这类交易被打包就需要额外工作。你不能直接推送到比特币节点，必须通过Slipstream处理。

Yeah. I mean, I think people rightfully point out that they increase the cost somewhat, right? There is some non zero cost to, okay, if all of the network is running Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Core has some relay policy that rejects certain types of transactions, getting those types of transactions mined requires some additional work. You can't just push them into your Bitcoin node. You have to go to Slipstream.

你需要了解、找到并下载Peter Todd的Libre Relay补丁集，运行节点，直接连接到F2Pool或其他运行该程序的矿池，然后通过这个渠道发送交易。所以确实存在额外工作量对吧？你可以说这增加了成本，不一定是金钱成本——虽然Slipstream交易费略高，但Libre Relay通过F2Pool打包并不产生额外金钱成本，但即便非金钱成本也是成本。

You have to go know about, find, download Peter Todd's Libre Relay patch set, run a node there, get some connections directly to F2 pool or whatever other miners are running it, and then send transactions via that. So there is non zero additional work, right? And that you can say that adds a cost. It's not necessarily a financial cost. I know Slipstream charges more for transactions via Slipstream than normal transactions, not a lot more, but some more, Libri Relay, getting it mined via F2Pool is not an additional cost, but some, even if it's a non financial cost, it's a cost.

因此人们感到恼火可以理解。他们会说：看，你们增加了这个成本，现在却要取消这个针对不良机制的成本——比特币本不该有这种机制。去你的。这种情绪可以理解，但我们必须仔细分析这个实际成本究竟是什么。

And so I think people are rightfully annoyed. They're like, look, there was this cost being added. You're removing this cost to this thing that I think is bad, that shouldn't exist in Bitcoin. Fuck you. And that's fair, but I think we have to really carefully analyze and consider what that actual cost is.

比如这个成本是否高到需要我们担忧或重点考虑？如果单纯看表面，觉得唯一成本就是需要集成Slipstream的API或运行Libre Relay之类的，那成本显然基本为零对吧？你只需要知道这个方案存在，对比特币稍有了解就行，成本几乎可以忽略。

Like, is that cost high enough that we need to worry about it or think heavily about it? I think if you just kind of naively look at it and you're like, okay, well the only cost is they have to integrate with this API with Slipstream, or they have to run Libre Relay or whatever, that cost is obviously basically zero, right? Like you have to know that it exists. And so you have to be a little bit well versed in Bitcoin, but the cost is basically zero.

你可以很容易地绕过它。

You can get around it quite easily.

我认为人们提出的论点是历史讲述了一个不同的故事，对吧？我想，如果机械师（Mechanic）坐在这里，或者有人主张修复过滤器，他们会辩称比特币的历史表明我们一直有过滤器，而且这些过滤器显然有效。像这类非标准交易很少被挖出。因此我们需要仔细分析，为什么会这样？这些交易的类型是什么？

I think people make the argument that history tells a different story, right? I think Mechanic, if you were sitting here or someone arguing fix the filters, would argue that, well, the history of Bitcoin is that we've always had filters and that the filters apparently work. Like these types of transactions that are non standard don't get mined very often. And so we need to carefully analyze, why is that? What are the types of transactions?

为什么它们很少被挖出？现实情况是，人们就是不想处理这类交易。哦，你想在交易中使用OpSuccess四吗？你想在交易中使用操作码OpSuccess四吗？不，你没有理由这么做。

Why do they not get mined very often? And the reality is it's because people just don't want to bake those kinds of transactions. Oh, did you want to use OpSuccess four in your transaction? Did you want to use the op code op Success four in your transaction? No, you have no reason to do that.

没有人有任何理由这么做。大多数人不知道它是什么意思，也不需要知道。你用它做不了什么有趣的事。所以绝大多数标准化规则，没人想去触碰。

Nobody has any reason to do that. Most people don't know what it means. They don't need to know what it means. There's nothing interesting you can do with that. So the vast majority of standardised rules, no one wants to do.

没人有动力创建这些交易。所以当然这些交易不会进入链上，因为根本没人想做这些事。具体到OpReturn方面，我认为情况类似。在OpReturn标准化之前，人们讨论过UTXO集膨胀的问题，因为人们确实想实现彩色币风格的协议，比如Taproot资产、RGB等，历史上大概有五六个这类协议。这不重要，但人们确实想做这些事，所以他们想通过多重签名、伪装成公钥等方式嵌入数据——让节点无法分辨，但他们的软件能解析识别。而OpReturn对比特币系统来说，比那种方式好太多太多了，对吧？

No one has any desire to create these transactions. So of course none of these transactions enter the chain because just no one has any desire to do them. On the specifically OpReturn side, I think similarly, before OpReturn was standardized, people were talking about loading the UTXO set because people do want to do colored coin style protocols, where there's Taproot assets, RGB, there's like five or six of them in history, whatever. It doesn't matter, but people have wanted to do these things, and so people wanted to embed the data via multisigs, via some, they pretend that it's a public key, they make it look like a public key so that nodes can't really tell the difference, but their software can parse it and tell what's going on. And OpReturn is much, much, much, much better for the Bitcoin system than that, right?

因为你避免了产生UTXO条目。你清楚地表明了意图。如果大家都用它，对所有人都有好处。对他们自己也更有利，更简单。

Because you avoid having a UTXO entry. You make clear what's going on. Better for everyone if they use that. It's better for them too. It's simpler.

他们不必进行复杂的公钥编码之类的操作。因此人们转而使用OpReturn——当然不是非标准的大容量OpReturn。但再次强调，这是因为人们不想用它们，没有实际需求。真正因标准化规则而改变的是铭文（inscriptions），对吧？

They don't have to do this complicated encoding as a public key or whatever. And so people have used op return in response, albeit not non standard ones, not large op returns. But again, it's because people don't want to use them. They don't have a real use for them. The thing that really did shift because of standardness rules is inscriptions, right?

这些情况是这样的：是的，在标准规则改变后，人们开始做这些事情，但并不是说人们之前就想做这些事，如果标准规则不变他们也会做。不，标准规则总是会调整以适应人们想做的事情类型，有时是为了引导他们走向正确的方向，比如说，你看，非标准交易被打包并没有财务成本或实质性成本，但确实存在一定成本，因此我们可以利用这点引导人们。如果他们想做某事，并且可以选择对比特币有利或有害的方式，而我们让对比特币有利的方式成为标准，他们很可能会选择那种方式，这样很好。我们可以用标准规则来引导人们，我们以前也这样做过，这就是整个争论的焦点。我们想扩大OP_RETURN的容量来引导Citria，让他们采取对比特币更有利而非更不利的做法。

So these things are cases where it's like, yes, okay, after the standardness rules changed, people started doing these things, but it's not that people wanted to do these things before and would have done them had the standardness rules not changed. No, the standardness rules have always shifted to accommodate the types of things people want to do, sometimes to nudge them in the right direction, to say, Look, there's not a financial cost, not a substantial cost for you to get nonstandard transactions mined, but is some cost, and so we can use them to nudge people in the right direction. If there's something they want to do, and they could do it in a way that's good for Bitcoin or bad for Bitcoin, and we make the way that's good for Bitcoin standard, they'll probably do it in that way, and so that's good. We can use standardness rules to kind of nudge people, and we have before, and that's kind of what this whole debate was. We want to make op returns bigger to nudge Citria, to do things that are a little better for Bitcoin and not worse for Bitcoin.

但人们把因果关系搞反了。并不是说，哦，标准规则先改变了，然后闸门大开人们开始做各种疯狂的事情。实际上，是人们先表达了做这些事的意愿，作为回应，标准规则才被修改，从而阻止他们用更糟糕的方式行事。他们无论如何都会做，但规则修改阻止了更坏的方式。

People But have the cause and effect reversed. It's not that like, oh, first the standardist rules got changed, and now all these people, all the floodgates opened and people started doing all these crazy things. No, actually, people expressed interest in doing these things. And in response, the standardness rules got changed, which prevented them from doing something in a worse way. They were gonna do it anyway, but it prevented them from doing it a worse way.

我不清楚Citria与核心开发团队的具体对话和互动情况，但我觉得这里有些人要么被搞糊涂了，要么理解正确。不知道是哪一方。有人认为Citria去找核心团队要求修改，然后核心团队就改了。实际情况是不是核心团队看到Citria的做法后主动做出了调整？

I think this is where, I don't know what's going on here in terms of like Sitria's conversations, interactions with Core, but I think this is where some people are getting either confused or getting it right. I don't know which side it is. I think people think that Sitria went to Core and asked for a change and then Core made a change. Is the reality that Core saw what Citria were doing and made a change to make that?

我也没和Citria交流过，但据我理解是第二种情况对吧？Citria设计了一种交易方案，要把所有数据嵌入输出中。由于技术原因，数据不能放在输入里，也不能采用铭文形式，必须放在交易输出里，而他们准备用很糟糕的方式实现——这会爆炸式增长UTXO集合，产生大量可能零值的输出。

I haven't spoken with Citria either, but from what I understand, it was the second, right? So Citria had this design for this transaction where they were gonna embed all this data in outputs. Technical reasons, it couldn't be in the input, it couldn't be an inscription style thing. It had to be in the outputs of the transaction, and they were going to do it with bad ways to do it. They were to blow up the UTXO set, have all these potentially zero value outputs.

那可能是他们另一种交易方案，但确实会导致交易输出中包含大量垃圾数据，膨胀UTXO集合。这对比特币不利。我们更希望他们使用OP_RETURN方式。既然他们需要这样做，我们就提高OP_RETURN容量限制来允许这种操作。

That might be a different one of their transactions, but have all these outputs in the transaction that had all this garbage in it that was going to bloat the UTXO set. It's like, this is not good for Bitcoin. We would rather you do it as an OPRETURN. So here, you need to do it. We'll increase the OPRETURN limit to allow you to do this.

我不想过多纠结Citria的例子，因为这些修改是为了允许某类操作而做出的。不是说'哦这个修改就是为Citria量身定做的'。而是有人——无论是否正当——确实存在这种使用需求。既然他们无论如何都会这么做，我们就得让这种操作不至于太糟糕，因为很可能其他人也会有...

I don't want to harp on the Citria example too much because these changes are made to allow for classes of things. It's not just like, oh, this change is just made for Citria. It's like, no, someone has a legitimate use case for this or legitimate or not, whatever. Someone has a use case they're going to do for this. And so we have to make it not as bad because probably lots of other people are gonna have

类似需求。

some ideas.

将会出现

There's gonna be

大量ZK roll up都在做同样的事情。

tons of ZK roll ups doing the same thing.

是的。还会有其他有类似需求的人。他们必须在输出中包含一些数据，然后会把这些数据放进一个简陋的多签方案里，或者某些非常糟糕的方案中——或者我们可以给他们更多的操作返回空间。

Yeah. There's gonna be other people who have similar needs. They're gonna have to have some data in the outputs and they're going to put it in a bare multi sig or something that's really nasty, or we can give them more op return space. That

有道理。我认为这个问题的另一个关键点在于处理情况的缘由。我请过Shinobi和Mechanic在节目上讨论过这事，Mechanic他...（虽然不想替他发言）但我觉得他认为他们搞砸了。而Shinobi则表示他们没搞砸。我知道你在这个问题上可能有点偏向性，但你认为Core团队处理得当吗？

makes sense. And then I think the other kind of crux of this issue is around cause handling the situation. I've had both Shinobi and Mechanic on the show talking about this and Mechanic, I think, again, don't wanna talk to him for him, but I think he thinks they fucked up. And Shinobi said, no, they did not fuck up. I know you may be a little bit biased on this one, but do you think Core handled this properly?

嗯。这么说吧，对于不了解情况的人——我已经很多年没为Core做贡献了。虽然常和Core团队的成员共进午餐，所以比较清楚他们的立场，但我并不参与开发，也不介入那些核心讨论。

Yeah. I mean, so for those who aren't familiar, I haven't contributed to Core in many years. I have lunch with some of the folks who do contribute to Core. So I know their side of it fairly well, but I don't work on it. I'm not in a lot of those conversations.

确实。

Yeah.

他们毕竟是人。在某些情况下，封禁手段确实用得太急切了。但话说回来，我也挺同情他们的——他们的工作平台就是GitHub，那就是他们的办公场所。

Obviously they're human. They got a little eager with the ban hammer in a few cases. At the same time, I don't envy them. Like, have this, their workspace is GitHub. That is where they work.

那是他们的办公空间，是他们每天与项目其他成员进行技术讨论的地方。当争论升级时，就像被发到推特上一样，所有人甚至他们的妈妈都会注册GitHub账号来评论，大喊大叫说'你们是恶魔，你们在摧毁比特币'之类的话。这时候你就得开始封禁用户了，因为

That is their office space. That's where they have technical conversations with everybody else working on the project every day. And when it gets flamed, it's just like posted on Twitter and everyone and their mom is creating a GitHub account so they can comment and just scream like, You guys are evil and you're destroying Bitcoin and whatever, yeah, you got to start banning people because

这不是

It's not the the

那种辩论的场所。推特（或X）才是适合的地方。还有邮件列表。我知道在比特币核心项目中，GitHub仓库始终有明确规定：只用于技术讨论，而邮件列表则用于那些更哲学性的问题，比如'我们该怎么做？'

that debate. It's not the place for that. Twitter is great for it or X or whatever. There's the mailing list. I know on the issue, Bitcoin Core has always had a policy of for Bitcoin Core, the repo on GitHub is for technical discussions, and the mailing list is for the more philosophical questions of like, what should we do?

你在软分叉讨论中经常看到这种情况。如果有人提交了软分叉的拉取请求，讨论内容应该是'代码是否正确'，而不是'我们该激活这个软分叉吗'，也不是'这个方案是否明智'。核心问题始终是'代码是否正确'。

And you see this all the time with like soft forks. It's like, no, if somebody opens a pull request for the soft fork, the discussion on the pull request for the soft fork is, is the code correct? It is not, should we activate this soft fork? It's not, is this software a good idea? It is, is the code correct?

这与'比特币是什么'无关。

It's not about what Bitcoin is.

没错。这类讨论应该发生在邮件列表里。你可以去邮件列表，可以去Delving，也可以去其他众多论坛进行这类对话。

Right. The mailing list is where that is. You can go to the mailing list. You can go to Delving. You can go to the many other forums to have conversations about these kinds of things.

GitHub不是干这个的。我知道有人希望GitHub承担这个功能，但项目架构本就不是这样设计的，也不需要这样设计。某些情况下他们可能封禁得太急切了，但有时又不得不这么做。根本上说，他们在沟通方式上搞砸了。

It's not the GitHub. I know people want it to be the GitHub, but that's just not the way the project is set up. That's not how it needs to be set up for them. And so, in some cases, maybe they were a little eager with the button, but they also had to be in some cases. Fundamentally they screwed up communication.

他们似乎没有沟通。这很难，因为比特币核心不是一个组织。没有为比特币核心工作的公关人员。严格来说，甚至没有可以加入的组织。就是一群开发者。

Like they didn't communicate. It's hard because Bitcoin Core is not an organization. There's no comms people who work for Bitcoin Core. There's no organization to work for, for that matter. There's just a bunch of developers.

于是这场辩论就开始了，他们在推特上互动，开始回复人们和引用推文，有些人相当激进，有些人超级被动，诸如此类。有些人会上播客节目等等，但没有正式声明。没有bitcoincore.org的博客来展示大家的想法。他们可以——bitcoincore.org博客以前发布过正式声明，我记得只有一次。

And so this debate started happening and they engage on Twitter and they start responding to people and quote tweeting, and some of them pretty aggressive and some of them are super passive and whatever. So some of them go on podcasts, whatever, but there's no formal statements. There's no bitcoincore.org blog, here's what everyone thinks. They can, bitcoincore.org blog has posted formal statements before, I think only in one case.

你认为核心团队应该配备公关人员吗？

Do you think Core should have a comms person?

是的，我认为应该加强沟通。部分原因是人们想知道他们在忙什么。就像我们之前讨论的比特币核心包中继功能，人们并不了解。如果你去读发布说明，会看到比特币核心实现了包中继。听起来很酷。

Yes, I think it should have better comms. In part, just like people want to know what they're up to. Like people don't see, we were talking about this like Bitcoin Core package relay thing. And it's like, okay, well, if you go read the release notes, you'll see like Bitcoin Core shipped package relay. It's like, cool.

这他妈有什么用？对我意味着什么？我为什么要关心？这时候就需要有人坐下来写文章解释：不不不，这从根本上改善了闪电网络的用户体验，解锁了以前无法实现的优质非托管钱包功能——这样的说明会很有帮助。

The fuck does that do? What does that mean for me? Why do I care? And it's like, having someone sit down and write posts that explain like, no, no, no. This fundamentally improves the Lightning user experience to unlock really good non custodial wallets that just weren't possible before would be helpful.

我认为让社区了解比特币核心许多工作背后的原因会很有好处。

I think that'd good for the community to see like the why of a lot of the work that Bitcoin Core does.

我觉得会有很多人愿意为这类工作提供资助。不知道我是不是太天真了，但我认为这将是一个非常有益的职位。

I think there'd be plenty of people out there that would be willing to offer grants for something like that. I don't know if I'm being very naive there, but I think that would be a really useful role.

哦，不，我完全同意。这显然很难，因为代表项目发言需要，因为它不是

Oh, no, I totally agree. It's obviously hard because speaking on behalf of the project requires, because it's not

你

You a

只有当项目中的每个人都同意时，才能真正代表项目发言。

really can only speak on behalf of the project when kind of everyone in the project agrees.

但即使只是解释人们想要这些东西。对吧。完成

But even if it was just explaining what these things people want Right. To done

因此对于这类事情，不太可能引起不满，但你仍然需要一个资历足够的人，能够把握什么样的说法不会冒犯他人且能获得认同，什么样的说法会让人觉得，啊，你的解释有点过于乐观了。必须找到合适的人来确保大家意见一致。但我认为这会非常有帮助。

And so for stuff like that, it's unlikely to ruffle any feathers, but you do still need someone who's senior enough to kind of have the vibe for what are people going to find unoffensive and agree with, and what are people going to be like, ah, you're being a little too rosy with your explanation. Have to have the right person who can kind of make sure everyone's on the right page. But I think it would be really helpful.

是啊，我也这么想。其中一个——我不知道这是否又是近因偏差，我可能夸大了——但让我担忧的是，比特币社区（暂且这么称呼）为了一件相对无关紧要的事情大动干戈。你认为比特币已经僵化的可能性因此增加了吗？

Yeah, do too. One of the, I don't know if, again, this is like a bit of recency bias and I'm blowing this out proportion. But one of the things that kind of worries me about this is the, like, Bitcoin community for lack of a better term have got up in arms about something that's relatively inconsequential. Do you think the chance that Bitcoin has already ossified has increased following this?

也许吧。我觉得，你知道，这很难说，对吧？因为这场辩论的一部分本质上是所谓的抗议性投票，对吧？从根本上说，掌权者长期受到普遍欢迎。

Maybe. I think, you know, there's, it's hard, right? Because there's obviously a part of this debate is just, what is it called? Like it's a protest vote, right? Fundamentally, one who's in power is viewed popularly for long.

确实。只是，你看政客们的支持率，他们刚当选时支持率很高，然后逐渐下降。这总是如此，对吧？因为他们做决策，有些人不同意这些决定，而在比特币的情况下，这些人往往失业，有更多时间在推特上表达不满，而不是做些有用的事。然后他们做更多决定，其他人又因不同原因反对。

For sure. It's just, it's not, you look at approval ratings for politicians, like they get elected, their approval rating is up here and it goes down. That's that's how it always happens, right? Because they make decisions, some people disagree with the decisions, and those people, at least in Bitcoin's case, are often unemployed and can spend their time voicing how much they disagree with those decisions on Twitter rather than actually doing something useful. And then they make more decisions and other people disagree with them for other reasons.

那些反对者之间可能也互不同意，但他们共同反对掌权者。无论好坏，人们视比特币核心团队为掌权者。我认为这完全准确，但有其道理。我同意。所以，情况一直如此。

And the people who disagree might not actually agree with each other, but they disagree with the people who are in power. For better or for worse, people see Bitcoin Core as that. I think that's entirely accurate, but there's something to it. I agree. So, that's always been the case.

这并不新鲜。我们在区块大小战争中看得更清楚，这种情况会持续。我认为这不一定意味着人们会直接反对变更。比如提出一个能为比特币增值的软分叉，总会有人反对。希望他们只是因无关紧要的细节反对，我们可以忽略这些琐碎分歧而非实质性争议。

That's not new. We saw it even more in the block size wars and it will continue. I think that doesn't necessarily mean that people will show up and say no to a change, right? Like if there's a proposed soft fork that adds value to Bitcoin, whatever, There will certainly be people who disagree. Hopefully, there's a proposed soft fork, they only disagree for minutiae reasons that don't really matter, and we can all kind of agree to ignore them rather than substantial disagreements.

所以我认为你看到的只是抗议票效应。那些本就因各种原因反对比特币核心团队的人现在叫得更响。我们可能在某个软件提案（比如重大共识清理）中看到这种情况，也可能看不到。可能有足够多人支持说'这值得做'，然后它实现了，皆大欢喜。

So I think what you're seeing is really just this protest vote effect. You're seeing people who already disagreed with Bitcoin Core for one reason or another and now are screaming louder. And we might see that with respect to some proposed software, great consensus cleanup or something, but we also might not. We might see enough people excited about it that they say, no, this is worth doing, and then it happens, and we're all happy

让我担忧的是，以契约功能为例，如果我们真要推进CTV，现在人们对Taproot升级及其连锁效应有严重创伤后应激障碍，我难以想象我们还能就这类变更达成粗略共识。

with that. The reason I'd be nervous though, is like if you use covenants as an example, if we like look like we're gonna go ahead with CTV, I think there's massive PTSD now from the Taproot upgrade and the sort of knock on effects from that, that I just, I struggle to see how we'll ever get rough consensus again on a change like that.

也许吧。我认为一个已失效的模式是：在区块大小战争前甚至期间，软分叉总是先在技术社区达成共识。就像要先决定给棚屋刷什么颜色——该用这个位还是那个位？对谁都无所谓，但存在技术差异需要讨论清楚。

Yeah, maybe. So I think one thing that has broken down is if you look at Soft Forks prior to the Block Size Wars and even into the Block Size Wars, way they always worked is first you had the technical community find consensus around an idea, right? So first, because we got to hash out what color to paint the shed. Like, should that be this bit or that bit? It doesn't matter to anyone, but there's some technical differences, and we've to hash it out.

你总能看到这个进程：想法先在技术圈传播，然后具体实现，人们反复争论后达成一个大致认可的方案。可能有人不同意某些细节，但会认为'好吧，虽不完全合我意，但还行，能让比特币更好'。其他人也不同意我的观点，我们在某些方面有分歧，无所谓了。

You always saw this progression of first, the idea gets socialized in the technical community, then a concrete implementation, and then people argue back and forth and come up with something concrete that we can all sort of agree on. People might disagree on this or that, but we recognize that like, okay, it's fine. It's not exactly the way I wanted it, but it's fine. It will make Bitcoin better. And other people disagree with me, and so the things we disagree on, whatever.

然后从这里开始，它会被推广到更广泛的社区，对吧？就像，好吧，我们有这个东西。技术社区基本同意了，现在是时候让更广泛的社区来做决定了。这里有个想法，我们认为应该这么做。

And then from there, it starts getting shopped out to the broader community, right? It's like, okay, we have this thing. The technical community kind of agrees, and now it's time for the broader community to decide. Here's an idea. We think we should do it.

告诉我们如果大家似乎都同意，我们就作为一个社区推进它。已经崩溃了。所以现在我们看到有些人，无论好坏，要么在技术社区中没有获得他们想要的成就，要么与技术社区联系不够紧密，或者出于某种原因决定，这件事应该发生却没有发生，我要直接去找更广泛的社区，我们要强行推动它。

Tell us If what you everyone seems to agree, we go forward with it as a community. Has broken down. So now we see people who, for better or for worse, either aren't finding the success they want in the technical community, aren't connected enough to the technical community, or for whatever reason decide, this should happen, it's not happening, I'm gonna go directly to the broader community and we're gonna like force it.

是的。

Yep.

其中部分原因是技术社区更大了，部分原因是有些人希望事情发生，但他们不知道流程是什么。而且很难弄清楚流程。就像你想让人们审查你的BIP，但他们很忙，没时间审查你的BIP。所以就像，我该怎么办？我认为我们应该这么做，但没人回应我，你知道，这不是他们的错，非常有能力的人也会遇到这个问题，对吧？

And part of that is like the technical community is bigger, part of it is like, some people want stuff to happen and they don't know what the process is. And it's hard to figure out the process. And it's like, you want to get people to review your BIP, but they're busy and they don't get around to reviewing your BIP. And so it's like, what am I supposed to do here? I think we should do this, but like, no one's answering me, you know, it's no fault of their own, like very competent people have this problem, right?

比如，传动系统

Mean, drivetrains

就是一个完美的例子。

are a perfect example of this.

是的，也许吧。但这样的例子有很多，我想这些人会感到沮丧，这完全合理。所以流程部分因为这一点崩溃了，部分因为人们太忙了。就像，好吧，你希望审查这个的人可能正忙着处理包中继和以不同方式中继交易。而比特币核心的内存池现在不一定在处理共识问题。

Yeah, maybe. But there are examples of this and these people I think get frustrated and that's totally fair. And so the process is broken down in part because of that, in part because people are busy. It's like, Okay, the people who you'd want to review this might be busy working on package relay and relaying transactions differently. And the mempool in Bitcoin Core are not working on consensus necessarily right now.

这确实增加了难度，但我认为并非不可能。以契约为例，我们反复见证过这种情况——各种想法来来去去，最终只有一小部分留存下来。

And so that makes it harder. But I don't think that makes it impossible. So with covenants, you brought up the covenants example. We've seen this repeatedly. We've seen ideas come and go and a small subset of it.

但即便是那些积极研究契约的人，最初也未能就目标达成共识。不过最近，活跃于契约研究领域的人们开始在某些方面形成一致意见。

But even the people actively working on covenants research hadn't found any agreement on what they wanted to do. And there was starting to be some agreement on what they want to do from the people who are actively working on covenants research.

还有那个CTV（检查模板验证）。

And that CTV.

再加上从堆栈检查病态数据。好吧，他们确实掌握了这些技术。他们拥有更具体的应用场景——要么正在使用，要么计划使用，比如ARC（替代复制检查）的实际构建与部署。CTV本可以成为ARC的绝佳改进方案，不过没有它也能完成部署。

Plus check sick from stack. And so, okay, they have that. They have like more concrete things that are using it or intending to use it, ARC actually being built and being deployed. And so it's like, okay, well CTV would be a nice improvement to ARC. It can be deployed without it.

确实可以

It can

没有CTV也能构建。我们可以先观察人们是否愿意在缺乏CTV的情况下使用它。如果确实存在需求且运行良好，那么CTV或许能带来提升。也许人们目前不感兴趣正是因为那些CTV能解决的问题。这样我们就获得了现实世界中的关键数据点，这在技术社区内部尤其具有说服力。

be built without it. We can see whether people are interested in using it without it. Then if people are interested in it, if it's kind of working, then like, okay, maybe CTV improves it. Maybe people aren't interested in using it because of the problems that it has that would be fixed by CTV or whatever. So we get these actual interesting points in the real world, and this starts to make a much more compelling argument, especially within the technical community.

就像这样：专注该领域的研究者开始达成共识，或许现在更多人应该关注并加入讨论。我个人虽不认同这个具体方向，但大方向或许可行。在我看来，这更像是成功分叉的雏形——社区的技术派正逐渐形成统一意见。

It's like, Okay, the people who are working on, focused on this area, are starting to agree with each other. Maybe now more people should pay attention. More people should join this discussion. I happen to disagree with that direction specifically, but it's directionally maybe okay. And so I think that looks a lot more like the beginnings of a successful self fork, where there's a technical portion of the community that's starting to agree.

当这一点变得更加确定，当有更多支持时，它就会开始变得更具说服力。比如，现在有一大批技术人员已经审视过、分析过这个问题，他们或赞同或反对，但都能接受这个方案，这样更广泛的社区就能做出更明智的决定。因此，我不认为我们因为这一点而僵化，部分原因是我看到了从事契约研究的人员之间逐渐融合的变化。

And then once that becomes a little more firm, once there's a little more there, then it starts to be much more compelling to like, Okay, now there's a whole heap of technical people who've looked at this, who've analyzed it, who agree or disagree, but are Okay with this, and now we can have the broader community make a more informed decision. And so I don't buy that we're ossified in part because of that, in part because I see the change in how the people working on covenants research have kind of melded together a little bit more.

能和乐观的马特聊天真好——对闪电网络乐观，对比特币升级乐观。你还在关注什么其他方面？

Well, it's nice to talk to bullish Matt, bullish on Lightning, bullish on Bitcoin upgrades. What else are you looking at?

我知道这很奇怪。我通常不是乐观派，很少这样。

I know it's weird. I'm not, I'm very rarely the bullish one.

是啊，我们之前做过三期节目吐槽闪电网络有多糟糕。所以这次是个不错的转变。

Yeah, think we've done like three shows on how much lightning sucks. So this is a nice change.

没错，确实挺奇怪的。我自己也觉得不习惯，不过嘛。

Yeah, no, it's weird. Feels weird to me too, but hey.

那么目前还有哪些让你兴奋的事情正在发生？

So what else is going on at the moment that you're excited about?

对，主要就是这些。我想，当然还有闪电网络相关的事情来拯救我们的钱包。另外还有BIP353，不知道你——我们好像从没讨论过BIP353？

Yeah, that's a lot of it. I guess, there's the lightning side of things just to save our wallets, of course. Also Bib three fifty three. I don't know if you, I don't think we've ever discussed it. Bib353?

在闪电网络领域，这个闪电地址概念确实击中了产品市场契合点，对吧？很多人非常喜欢这种用户名@域名的形式。它非常简洁，容易记住，也方便分享。

So 353 is a, so in the Lightning world, this Lightning address concept really hit PMF, right? So a lot of people really love this username at domain. Like it's super slick. It's easy to remember. It's easy to share.

它易于告知他人，非常熟悉，就像

It's easy to tell people. Familiar, like

人们都知道这个

people know this It

它存在很多问题，但同时也是闪电网络专属，这意味着它无法扩展到其他领域。它还有隐私问题、制裁合规疑问。是的，它确实可以改进。353方案将其推进了五个新台阶。

has a lot of issues, but it's also lightning only, which means it doesn't scale to other stuff. And it has privacy issues. It has sanctions questions. Yeah, it could be improved. Three fifty three takes it to five new, takes it five steps further.

它保持了同样熟悉的用户体验——用户名和域名之类的。但它不使用HTTP和LNURL，而是直接使用DNS。就像你会做的那样，它只是将数据嵌入DNS中，就是一个文本记录。如果你了解DNS，或者曾经搭建过网站，你可能需要复制过类似谷歌站点验证的文本记录。

So it has the same kind of familiar user experience, username and domain, whatever. But instead of using HTTP and then LN URL, it just uses DNS. And so it just embeds the data in the DNS, just like you would. It's just a text record. If you know DNS, if you've ever put a website up, you might've had to copy a text record from like Google site verification or whatever.

它就是一个文本记录，包含了你所有的比特币支付指令。DNS真正美妙之处在于：DNS实际上是分层且经过认证的。所以在硬件钱包里，你可以嵌入两个公钥（一个旧的和一个当前的），以及验证签名和解析DNS记录的代码。

It's just a text record. And it just has all of your Bitcoin payment instructions. What's really nice about DNS. DNS is actually hierarchical and authenticated. So in a hardware wallet, you can embed two public keys, one old one and one current one, and the code to verify signatures and to parse DNS records.

你实际上可以给它一个完整的证明，让它能完全离线验证这条支付指令确实是属于这个名字的。

And you can actually give it a full proof that it can verify totally offline that this payment instruction is for this name.

哦，那太酷了。

Oh, that's cool.

这意味着我可以打开钱包输入‘wanna pay, know, donatewhatbitcoindid.com’，然后按回车，再打开硬件钱包时，它不会显示一个我无法验证且毫无意义的该死的地址。它会显示‘在whatbitcoindid.com捐赠’，而我能确信这是经过认证的。这不是胡扯，是真的。

So this means that I can go on my wallet and type in, wanna pay, know, donatewhatbitcoindid.com, and I can hit enter, I can go to my hardware wallet, and my hardware wallet won't display a fucking address that I can't verify and has no meaning to me whatsoever. It will say, donate at what bitcoindid.com. And I can know that that's actually authenticated. That's not bullshit. That's real.

我可以信任这个。我不需要依赖我的电脑不会提供虚假证明之类的。它已经验证过了。这用户体验真的很棒。

I can trust that. And I'm not trusting like my computer to not give it a fake proof or whatever. It verified it. That's a really cool UX.

这非常酷。

That's very cool.

这是更好的用户体验，因为所有硬件钱包虽然很棒，但人们使用时往往是：我要存钱到交易所，于是在电脑上登录交易所获取地址，点击支付后打开硬件钱包，把钱包对着屏幕核对两者显示是否一致。而恶意软件早已篡改了屏幕上的地址。这种核对毫无意义，对你没有任何价值。

It's a much better UX because in all these hardware wallets, it's great, but people go and like, okay, I want to deposit to my exchange and they go on their computer and they go to their exchange and they get the address and then they hit pay and then go to their hardware wallet and they hold their hardware wallet up against the screen and they check that the hardware wallet and the screen show the same thing. And the malware changed the address on your screen. It doesn't like this, this meant nothing. This added no value to you.

甚至不需要有恶意软件。就像我们在Bybit看到的情况。

It doesn't even need to have malware on there. Like we saw what happened with Bybit.

确实，确实。网站被篡改了。有些交易所你可以打电话让他们验证地址。如果你要存一大笔钱就应该这么做。拜托，这种用户体验太疯狂了。

Sure, sure. The website got changed. So in some exchanges you can phone, you can pick up the phone, call the exchange, have them verify the address. You should do this if you're depositing a bunch of money. Like, come on, that's crazy UX.

你能想象吗？你的交易所就像Coinbase的Matt那样，我可以查看我的硬件钱包。不，我正往Coinbase账户或更好的交易所存款，希望如此。

Can you imagine like your exchange is just like Matt at Coinbase or whatever, and I can check on my hardware wallet. No, I'm depositing to my account at Coinbase or some better exchange, hopefully.

River。

River.

River。我的River账户对吧？用户体验好太多了。这样我们就能在链上实现，同时也适用于闪电网络。

River. My account at River, right? That's so much better UX. So we can get that for on chain. It also works for Lightning.

它同样适用于Cashew或其他任何支付机制。只需一个名称，一条文本记录就能通用于所有场景。因为是文本记录，操作极其简单。如果你有自己的域名，只需复制粘贴到网站即可。

It would also work for Cashew or whatever other payment mechanism you're using. Just one name, one text record that works for everything. Because it's a text record, it's super easy. If you have your own domain, it's super easy. You just copy and paste it into the website.

这样就搞定了，完全不用费心。这不是LNURL，不需要自己搭建LNURL服务器之类的，根本无需考虑这些。

You're done. You don't have to think about it. It's not LNURL. You have to run your own LNURL server or whatever. Don't have to think about it.

你只需登录域名注册商后台，开启DNSSEC功能（通常就是个开关按钮），然后粘贴文本记录。目前还处于早期阶段，已有部分闪电钱包支持该功能——Phoenix、Misty Breeze钱包以及他们的SDK现在都支持。

You just go to whoever you registered your domain with. You'd turn on the DNSSEC button, usually just a button you turn on, and then you paste in your text record. So this is still pretty early. There's some Lightning wallets that support it now. Phoenix supports it, Misty Breeze, the Breeze wallet, as well as their SDK now supports it.

LDK自然为我们所有钱包提供了支持。闪电网络端已内置Bolt 12协议，钱包正在逐步适配。硬件钱包方面存在些鸡生蛋问题，因为人们没有接收端设备——需要硬件钱包支持，也需要电脑端钱包配套支持。

LDK obviously supports it for all of our wallets. And the Lightning end is built in Bolt 12. Lightning wallets are starting to adopt it. It's got a little bit of a chicken and egg problem on the hardware wallet side because people don't have them to receive. You gotta get hardware wallet support and you gotta get the wallet on the computer to support it.

这只是时间问题。

It's just time.

所以这是个鸡生蛋蛋生鸡的问题。它需要时间。我已经和硬件钱包团队进行了多次交流。他们对此感兴趣，但优先级难以确定，资源获取也很困难。这是一旦有几个钱包开始实施，人们就会看到用户体验，并要求他们的软件钱包和硬件钱包也跟进的事情，因为这将会非常流畅。

So it's a chicken and egg problem. It just needs time. I've had a number of conversations with hardware wallet people. They're interested in it, but prioritization is hard, getting resources is hard. It's one of those things that once a few wallets start to do it, I think people are gonna see the user experience and demand that their wallet does it and their hardware wallet does it, because it's just gonna be so slick.

所以这最终会实现的。如果你感兴趣，就去推特上@你的硬件钱包供应商，

So that's coming eventually. If you're interested in it, tweet at your hardware wallet vendor,

在推特上@硬件钱包供应商，并打电话给你的国会议员。

ask Tweet them at hardware about and call your congressman.

并打电话给你的国会议员。或者如果你是工程师，或者即便不是，也可以打开你最喜欢的AI编程工具，把它黑进你的硬件钱包里。

And call your congressman. Or if you're an engineer, or if you're not an engineer, load up your favorite AI coding tool and hack it into your hardware wallet.

然后感受它的氛围。

And vibe it.

虽然可能会有bug也可能无法运行，但或许能说服你的硬件钱包供应商无论如何都要实现它——因为他们会被烦到。

And it'll probably be buggy and it probably won't work, but maybe it will convince your hardware wallet vendor to do it anyway because they're gonna be annoyed.

好了。非常感谢你，马特。听到你对比特币持乐观态度我很高兴。比特币表现不错。是的。

There you go. Well, thank you, Matt. I'm very glad to hear you bullish. Bitcoin's doing good. Yeah.

我们正处于

We're in

一个不错的位置。疯狂。

a good spot. Wild.

确实疯狂。我很感激。期待你去拉斯维加斯，那将是疯狂的几天。

It's wild. Well, I appreciate it. You look forward to Vegas. Gonna be a wild few days.

是啊是啊。我是说，对我来说工作量很大，要推广这个。和政客交谈，上各种播客，真的就是想让更多人知道这件事，知道我们时间紧迫，知道这有多重要。所以我一个接一个地上播客，一个接一个地演讲，各种事情。会非常忙乱。

Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, it's a lot, for me, it's a of promoting this. Talking to politicians, a bunch of podcasts, really just trying to get the word out there because not enough people know that this is going on, know that we have a short window and know just how important it is. So I'm in back to back podcasts, back to back talks, all kinds of stuff. It's gonna be nuts.

太棒了。有任何需要支持的地方我都会尽力。我会确保把所有链接都放在节目说明里。不过谢谢你，老兄。真的很感激。

Love it. Well, anything I can do to support, I will. I'll make sure I link everything in the show notes below the show. But thank you, man. I appreciate this.

当然，随时欢迎你来。我知道你想讨论这个话题，这个邀请长期有效。非常感谢你。真的很感激。

And, obviously, open invites come on whenever you want. I know you want to talk about this, but that extends forever. So thank you very much. Appreciate it.

好的。谢谢邀请我。

Yeah. Thanks for having me.