比特币未来的争夺战 | 萨姆森·莫

比特币是用于数据传输存储，还是作为货币？这个论点涉及太多维度，很难准确抓住问题核心。目前人们对整个比特币核心开发团队存在极大的不信任感，看起来腐败丛生。我不想断言它确实腐败，但表象确实如此。

Is Bitcoin for data transmission and storage, or is it for money? There are so many dimensions to the argument that it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what the crux of the issue is. There's a massive amount of mistrust on Bitcoin Core development as a whole right now. It looks corrupt. I don't wanna say it is corrupt, but it definitely looks corrupt.

如果你做出改动却没人愿意运行你的软件，那还不如不做，因为毫无效果。我认为国家层面的采用即将到来，这些转变往往发生得极快——看似缓慢积累，实则突然爆发。我们距离见证价格暴涨和国家级FOMO恐慌，只是时间问题。

If you make a change and no one is willing to run your software, then you might as well have just not done it because it has zero effect. I think the nation state adoption is coming. These things happen very quickly. It's like literally gradually and then suddenly. It's simply a matter of time before we see a massive run up and we see a massive nation state FOMO, you know, panic.

每个人心里都隐约觉得不对劲。这种'突然'可能近在眼前，随时可能触发。比特币价格确实，你知道的，正处于欧米伽级别的临界点。

Everyone has a sense in their head that something is off. It puts the suddenly very close to now, and it could trigger at any time. Bitcoin price is definitely, you know, on the verge of omega.

欢迎来到节目。这是新版《比特币做了什么》的首期嘉宾。很高兴见到你，老兄，最近如何？

Welcome to the show. First time on the new What Bitcoin Did. Good to see you, man. How are you?

还撑得住，丹尼。能参加新版节目很荣幸，这是我第一次上新版。

I'm hanging in there, Danny. Good to be on the new show. My first episode on the new one.

我知道，我超期待。这个话题目前是观众呼声最高的——我每条视频下的首评永远是'什么时候讨论节点问题'。六个月前我和Mechanic在节目里聊过，也请过Shinobi来探讨。

I know. I'm excited. And this is the most requested topic at the moment by a long way. Under every single video that I post, the first comment is always, when are you gonna talk about knots? I did cover this with Mechanic on a show, and I had Shinobi on the show maybe six months ago now.

但我觉得整体讨论环境反而恶化了，话语层次不断降级，演变成让我有点不敢轻易涉足的局面。我曾试图组织辩论，邀请节点派和核心派进行坦诚冷静的对话，但双方已不愿交流。所以能和你对话真好，Samson。

But this the whole conversation has kind of got worse, I think. The the the level of discourse has got worse. It's devolved into something that I've been kind of a bit nervous to to kinda get into. And I tried to set up a debate with a few people from the not side and a few people from the core side, trying to have, like, a very honest, calm conversation about this, but one wants to talk to each other anymore. So I'm glad that we can do this, Samson.

我认为你是这件事中的理智之声，所以我们要深入探讨一下。

I think you're you're a voice of reason in this, so we're gonna get into it.

好的。开始吧，丹尼。

Alright. Let's do it, Danny.

那我们开始吧？我觉得会很有意义。显然我们整天泡在比特币推特上，关注这些动态，但很多听众可能并不完全清楚发生了什么。能否先提供些背景信息？

So should we start? I think it'll be good. There's obviously we spend all our time on Bitcoin, Twitter. We follow this stuff, but there'll be a lot of the listeners that maybe don't know exactly what's going on. So can we start by just adding some context?

你能解释下过去六到十二个月发生了什么吗？

Can you explain what's happened here over the last six, twelve months?

不如你先试着说说看，我来判断你说得对不对？这样可以衡量普通人的理解水平——当然你不是普通人，但你比那些深入其中的人要抽离些。

Well, why don't you take a stab at it, and I can tell you if you got it right? That's a good barometer for, you know, the average person's understanding. Not that you're average, but you're, like, you know, you're less in it

甚至低于平均水平。具体日期我记不清了，但Core团队宣布要取消上限期限后，另一派比特币玩家非常不满，他们担心比特币网络会出现垃圾信息，担心区块链上可能被写入什么内容。我觉得这本质上是情感与理性的辩论——有人从意识形态上不愿比特币变成某种样子，尽管技术上这些操作早已可行。而Core团队推行这些改动，是为了提升比特币效率，并非刻意给链上垃圾信息开绿灯，这是我的理解。

than below average. So, obviously, I I can't remember the exact date, but Core came out and said they're gonna remove the upper term limit. Then this other faction of Bitcoiners have been very annoyed about that because they're worried about spam on Bitcoin, what could be put into the Bitcoin blockchain. And I think this kinda comes down to a sort of a hearts versus minds debate where people ideologically don't want Bitcoin to become something even if technically you can already do all that stuff on Bitcoin. And the reason the core are implementing these changes is to try and make Bitcoin more efficient than not necessarily trying to just allow spammers on chain would be my my take.

是啊。这事非常复杂，争论涉及太多层面，很难抓住问题核心。比如关于这是否算垃圾信息？我们能阻止吗？该阻止吗？这些争论始终存在。

Yeah. I mean, it's it's a very convoluted thing, and there are so many dimensions to the argument that it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what the crux of the issue is. There's the whole debate about, you know, is it spam? And can we stop spam? Should we stop spam?

关于比特币的争论在于，它究竟是货币还是任意数据？我们是否希望比特币仅仅是一个加密数据块，用Adam Back的话说，一个加密累加器？还是说我们想认定它为货币？此外还有核心派与非核心派的分歧，开发者反对非核心派，非核心派又反对核心派。这又引出了另一个复杂问题——到底什么才算是一个漏洞。

There's the debate upon, is Bitcoin money or is it arbitrary data? And do we want Bitcoin to be just a cryptographic blob, a cryptographic accumulator in Adam Back's words? And or do we wanna say it's money? And then there's the whole facet of, you know, just core versus nots, developers being against knots and knots against core. And that goes into another rabbit hole of, you know, what is a bug even.

因为如果回溯到争议爆发的起点，其实就是Ordinals铭文垃圾信息事件。当时Luke提交了一个漏洞报告CV-2023-50428，指出这些新协议绕过了数据载体大小限制。而许多核心开发者直接表态：不承认这是漏洞。

Because if you go back in time to the where it kinda kicked off, it is really the Ordinals inscription spam. Right? And that was when Luke had a a Luke logged a bug, c v twenty twenty three five zero four two eight. Basically, saying that the this these new protocols are bypassing data carrier size. And a lot of core developers just said, nope.

他们声称'这不是漏洞而是特性'，甚至修改文档来'修复'这个所谓的漏洞。在我看来，这正是分裂的开始。如今核心派与非核心派关于OP_RETURN的争端，都是那个时间点的后续影响。

Not a bug. It's a feature. So they kinda changed documentation to fix the bug. And I think that is kind of where, in my mind, the schism happened. And the fallout now over knots versus core and off return is downstream of that moment in time.

总体而言，这就像打开了潘多拉魔盒。但最终演变成了对核心代码库控制权的争夺——毕竟核心团队已经变相驱逐了Luke。记得他们最初提议修改OP_RETURN时，居然通过禁言用户、反复锁帖这种极其幼稚的手段来压制反对声音。

So it's a big can of worms, I would say, overall. But the net effect is really maybe it's a battle over the core repo because core core is kind of booted Luke now. Yeah. You know, like, when they were first proposing the change shop return, they kind of were banning people and locking the thread to prevent people from knocking, and then unlocking it to act it, and then relocking it. It's just an incredibly childish thing that they were doing.

现在Luke基本被'康奈尔教廷'除名了，这无疑是当前斗争的关键因素。非核心派正在获得越来越多支持，Ocean矿池的算力也在快速增长。本可以避免的糟糕局面发展至此——如果当初更多人听取Luke的意见，在垃圾信息问题萌芽时就及时解决的话。

But, you know, Luke is kind of excommunicated from the Church of Cornell. And that's probably, you know, a a major factor in the ongoing battle. You know, he's got knots gaining traction, a lot of traction. And I would say Ocean is overall gaining a lot of hash rate too. So the whole situation is kind of a really bad situation that we got into that could have been avoided, I believe, if there was there were more people listening to Luke at that time, and we nipped the spam issue in the bud early on.

但事已至此，我们也只能面对现实。

But, you know, here we are.

这简直是雷区啊。就你刚才说的内容里，有好几点我想展开讨论。不过我们得抓紧时间切入辩论核心——我不想纠缠于细枝末节。但你提到核心团队在GitHub上禁言用户这事，我之前正好和Shinobi、Mechanic都聊过这个情况。

I mean, this is such a minefield. Even in everything you said there, there are a few things that I wanted to pick out. And and just quickly, because we I wanna get into the core of the debate, and I don't wanna get into these little minutia bits. But you talked about how Core were banning people from commenting on GitHub. And this is something that I spoke again both to Shinobi and Mechanic about.

我认为Mechanic的观点更有趣，因为他站在被排挤且不被允许发表意见的一方。是的，GitHub或许不是讨论比特币意识形态定位的合适场所，那里更应该聚焦技术辩论。Mechanic甚至承认过，这类对话可能确实不适合在那个平台上展开。

And I think Mechanic's take on it's more interesting because he was on the side that was getting, you know, kicked out and not allowed to comment. Yeah. GitHub maybe isn't the place to have the debates about what Bitcoin ideologically should be. It should be more the place you have technical debate. And I I think Mechanic even conceded that, that maybe that is not the correct forum to have those conversations.

这很难说。讨论什么是漏洞的论坛究竟该在哪里？回顾我指出的分裂根源，当时这些讨论发生在技术论坛、GitHub和邮件列表上，但最终并未产生理想结果。

It's difficult to say. I mean, where is the forum to discuss what is a bug? Right? If you go back to what I pointed out as the origin of the the split, then, you know, where was that place to discuss it? You know, that was it was technical forums or GitHub and the mailing list, but the that didn't really result in a good outcome, I think.

但问题归根结底在于治理机制。我们总说没有治理，实则不然。核心维护者对代码合并和项目走向有着决定性影响，无论他们是否承认，其意见权重远超普通贡献者。所以这本质上是治理问题。

But, you know, it comes down to the what is the governance? And we like to say there's no governance, but there really is governance. Right? There are leaders and core, the maintainers, you know, have a big weight in, you know, what happens, what gets merged, and their acts and knacks carry more weight whether they believe it or not then, you know, just your ordinary contributor. So it comes down to, I think, governance.

至于这些宏观议题应该在何处讨论，目前确实没有明确答案，我自己也没有解决方案。难道是在X平台？

And the question of where these broader topics are hashed out is definitely something that is not yet answered, and I don't really have an answer. Is it on x?

看起来是这样。

It seems to be.

是啊，虽然不确定，但目前似乎就是在这个平台上讨论。对吧？

Yeah. I don't know, but that seems to be where it is right now. Right?

在深入问题核心前，我们应该先表明立场偏见吗？这样听众能清楚我们的出发点。就我个人而言，我认为Core团队并非无可指摘。最大的问题在于他们缺乏对行动原因和目的的充分解释。

Before we get into the kind of crux of the issue, should we lay out our biases? Because I think then everyone who's listening knows what side of this we're coming from. And so for me, personally, I don't think core is without fault. Don't get me wrong. Like, I think the the big issue has come from the communication of what they're doing and why they're doing it, I think.

但让我自己运行Knots节点我会感到不安，接下来我会解释原因。归根结底，这主要是因为该项目由单个人维护和运营。即便Luke才华横溢——他在比特币领域的成就确实令人惊叹——这对我来说仍是个问题。而比特币的美妙之处在于，你其实什么都不需要做。

But I wouldn't feel comfortable myself running knots, and we're gonna get into the reasons why. But, like, really, it just comes down to the fact that it's maintained and run by a single person. Even if Luke's brilliant, like, I can I he is he's done amazing things with Bitcoin? That's still an issue for me. And, like, the beautiful thing about Bitcoin is you really don't have to do anything.

比如，如果你不喜欢正在发生的变化，直接不升级就好。所以这大概就是我的立场——在这次讨论后，我最可能的选择是继续运行Core 29版本。不知道你的看法如何。

Like, if you don't like the change that's happening, just don't upgrade. And so that's probably where I'm at where, like, you running Core twenty nine is my my most likely path after this. I don't know where where you stand.

明白。我算是持中立态度，可能更倾向于Knots，但我也认可Core整体的价值。我认为Core内部存在许多有问题的个人，组织架构本身也有不少结构性缺陷。具体细节我不想展开，但Danny你迟早会请到嘉宾来曝光这些黑料，比如背后捅刀、内部政治斗争、组团攻击、封杀异己之类的。

Right. So I'm kind of, in the middle. I probably lean more towards knots, but I also see the value in core as a whole. I think there are a lot of problematic individuals in core and a lot of structural problems with the organization itself. And I don't wanna get into it, but eventually, Danny, you're gonna have someone on and they're gonna air a lot of dirty laundry, you know, dealing from backstabbing, internal politics, brigading, canceling people.

问题清单能列很长，我想你迟早会了解到这些的，真相总会浮出水面。虽然存在问题，但那里确实有优秀的开发者，他们经验丰富且贡献卓著。不过同时也有许多新人开发者似乎别有用心，他们的行为在旁人看来充满利益冲突，可能对比特币有害。

There's a laundry list of stuff, and, you know, you'll you'll you'll get it eventually, I think. It'll come it'll come to light. But, you know, there are problems there, but there are good developers. There are talented developers that know a lot and have worked on it a lot. But at the same time, you have a lot of newer developers that seem to have ulterior motives or have different goals and are doing things that people can perceive to be conflicted and potentially bad for Bitcoin.

我同意你对Knots的评价。那些确实是常见的抵制理由——主要是Luke在主导。虽然贡献者正在增加，但这本质上还是Luke主导的项目。所以我基本认同你的观点，我会坚持使用29版本（连29.1都不用），拒绝升级。

And then I agree with your your feedback on knots. Like, those are very common resistance points to running it, that it is mostly Luke. I think there are more contributors and there will be more. But, you know, it is a project largely owned by Luke. So I'm kind of in your camp, I would say I'm going to stick with 29, not even 29.1, but 29, and I won't upgrade.

这也是我目前的建议：暂不升级，静观其变。我认为比特币有机会出现第三个主流客户端分支（叫什么都可以，

And this is generally the recommendation I'm making, which is let's not upgrade. Let's just wait and see. And I think there's an opportunity for a third major Bitcoin client fork, or branch, whatever you wanna call it. Fork kind of triggers people, but just like another benign clone of Bitcoin Core that is kind of the middle road, removing some of the more contentious changes that Core did and maintaining security fixes. Because you can say you don't have to upgrade, and that's often a counterpoint from the Core side, like, oh, you don't like what we're doing, don't upgrade then or run something else.

但之后呢？当人们真的运行其他版本时，又会嘲讽说'用那个版本的人都是蠢货'对吧？可问题是，你也不能永远不升级。作为矿池或交易所，可能一年左右就必须升级了，毕竟会有性能优化和漏洞修复。

But then, you know, when people run something else, they go, you you're you're you're stupid for running that other thing. Right? But, you know, you also cannot not upgrade indefinitely. You have to upgrade at some point, maybe one year, two years. If you're a mining pool or an exchange, think, you know, probably in the one year mark because there will be optimizations and bug fixes.

所以，我认为我处于中间立场，在这片混乱中确实存在一条折衷之路。

So, yeah, I think I'm in the middle ground, and there is a middle path through some of this mess.

如果能在降低税单的同时囤积比特币呢？通过Blockware挖矿，你完全可以做到。根据最新税收法案，美国矿工可在单一年度全额抵扣矿机成本。没错，100%全额抵扣。

What if you could lower your tax bill and stack Bitcoin at the same time? Well, by mining Bitcoin with Blockware, you can. New tax guidelines from the big beautiful bill allow American miners to write off a 100% of the cost of their mining hardware in a single tax year. That's right. A 100% write off.

若你有10万资本利得或收入，购买价值10万的矿机即可全额抵税。Blockware的托管挖矿服务让你即刻开始比特币挖矿，全程无需动手。从矿机安保到低价电力供应，再到矿池配置，他们包办一切。你每天都能以折扣价囤积比特币，还能在报税季省下大笔开支。立即登录mining.blockwaresolutions.com/wbd开启旅程。

If you have a 100 k in capital gains or income, you can purchase a 100 k of miners and offset it entirely. Blockware's mining as a service enables you to start mining Bitcoin right now without lifting a finger. Blockware handles everything from securing the miners to sourcing low cost power to configuring the mining pool, they do it all. You get to stack Bitcoin at a discount every single day while also saving big come tax season. Get started today by going to mining.blockwaresolutions.com/wbd.

每购买一台托管矿机，即可获赠一周免费托管及电力服务。当然，以上不构成税务建议。详情咨询Blockware：mining.blockwaresolutions.com/wbd。本期节目由行业巨头Iron赞助——这家纳斯达克上市的最大比特币矿企采用100%可再生能源，不仅支撑比特币网络，更为AI领域提供尖端算力资源。

And for every hosted miner purchased, you get one week of free hosting and electricity. Of course, none of this is tax advice. Speak with Blockware to learn more at mining.blockwaresolutions.com/wbd. This episode is brought to you by the massive legends, Iron, the largest Nasdaq listed Bitcoin miner using 100% renewable energy. Iron are not just powering the Bitcoin network, they're also providing cutting edge computing resources for AI, all backed by renewable energy.

我们与创始人Dan和Will合作已久，其价值观令人钦佩，特别是对本地社区和可持续算力的承诺。无论你对比特币挖矿还是AI算力感兴趣，Iron都在树立行业标杆。访问iren.com（即iren.com）了解更多。若你已自托管比特币，定深谙硬件钱包之痛：复杂设置、蹩脚界面，以及可能丢失/被盗/遗忘的助记词。BitKey解决了这些问题。

We've been working with our founders, Dan and Will, for quite some time now and have been really impressed with their values, especially 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. If you're already self custody of Bitcoin, you know the deal with hardware wallets, complex setups, clumsy interfaces, and a seed phrase that can be lost, stolen, or forgotten. Well, BitKey fixes that.

BitKey由Square和Cash App团队打造的多签硬件钱包，集成加密恢复系统和内置继承功能，无需纠结助记词，提供直观易用的操作体验。这是无压力的简单安全自托管方案，被《时代》周刊评为2024最佳发明之一。使用优惠码WBD可享8折优惠，访问bitkey.world并输入代码WBD。

BitKey is a multisig hardware wallet built by the team behind Square and Cash App. It packs a cryptographic recovery system and built in inheritance feature into an intuitive, easy to use wallet with no seed phrase to sweat over. It's simple, secure self custody without the stress, and time named BitKey one of the best inventions of 2024. Get 20% off at bitkey.world when you use code WBD. That's bitkey.world and use code WBD.

老实说，随着更多人运行Notts，更多开发者关注Notts，这似乎是件好事。如果有人想运行不同实现版本，我完全没意见——这是他们的自由。我不会冲着别人吼叫，指责他们犯傻。

Okay. And I think, to be honest, out of this, with more people running Notts, hopefully, more developer eyes on Notts, like, that seems like a good thing. I've got no problem if people wanna go run a different implementation. That's completely their choice. I'm I'm not gonna scream at people and tell them they're being dumb.

这只是，只是这不是我的选择

It's just it's just not what I'm choosing

去做。但这里有个问题。丹尼，这里有个问题。不知道你是否注意到，核心派系正变得越来越焦躁，这与节点运行者数量增加及其对网络本身的影响有关。所以你看到的是内存池正在碎片化，因为人们在进行过滤。

to do. But there's a problem with that. There's a problem with that, Danny. So I don't know if you noticed, but the the core faction is getting more agitated, and it has to do because of the increase in in knots node runners and their impact on the network itself. So what you're seeing is the mempool fragmenting because people are filtering.

这对网络有连锁影响，比如紧凑区块会受影响。矿池拥有私有矿池的可能性也会增加。这还会带来额外影响，比如RBF也可能受影响，因为你无法看到所有交易或无法准确估算手续费，这可能导致诸如闪电网络钉死攻击等问题。所以我的感觉是，他们现在意识到有问题，但他们的工具箱通常只是对人们大喊大叫，说听核心开发者的就行。这其实也不奏效。

And that has downstream implications on the network, like compact blocks are affected. And you have more the more increased likelihood that mining pools will have private pools. And that has additional impacts too, like RBF can be impacted as well because, you know, you don't see the all the transactions or you're not able to estimate fees as accurately, and that can lead to some things like lightning pinning attacks too. So my feeling is, like, they realize that there's a problem now, but their toolkit generally involves yelling at people and saying, you know, just just listen to Core. And that doesn't really work either.

所以我认为，核心阵营正面临一场危机。

So there is a a crisis, I believe, in the Core camp.

我看到很多评论和推特上很多人真心认为Core 30会毁掉比特币。比特币。这是我完全不同意的观点。我想知道你对这个问题的看法。我觉得整个讨论变得太煽动性了。

I I see a lot of the comments and a lot of people on Twitter who genuinely believe that Core thirty is going to destroy Bitcoin. Bitcoin. That's something I wholeheartedly disagree with. I I wanna know your kind of take on that. I think the whole conversation's got too inflammatory.

是的。我不同意节点阵营认为这会终结一切的观点，但我也认为移除所有这些默认设置不是个好主意。因为如果矿池盲目升级，它们会对网络产生影响。你会看到更大的OP_RETURN输出，还会鼓励其他项目基于这个新比特币构建，因为没有威慑力。主流比特币客户端的开发者没有抵制这些外部协议和垃圾邮件的倾向。所以我认为需要有个威慑机制。

Yeah. I I would disagree with the Notts camp and and that it's going to end things, but I also think it is not a good idea to remove all of these defaults because, you know, if pools upgrade blindly, then they're going to have an impact on the network. So you'll have, you know, larger op returns, and you will encourage other projects to build on this new Bitcoin, because there is no deterrent. There is no, you know, disposition from the developers of the main Bitcoin client to resist these external protocols and resist spam. So I think there there needs to be a detriment.

但话说回来，如果所有人都升级到30，我不认为这是世界末日。不过我也看到，Knots采用率越来越高，正在给核心开发者对网络应有形态的看法造成问题。

But, again, if everyone did upgrade to 30, I don't think it's the end of the world. But I also see the increasing adoption of knots is causing problems for how the core developers view the network should be.

好的。我们刚才已经铺垫得差不多了。我想深入探讨一下具体细节。我认为最好的切入点可能是垃圾信息问题，因为整个讨论正是由此引发的。在你看来，什么是垃圾信息？

Alright. We've kind of set the table there. I wanna get into kind of the actual details of this. I I think probably the best place to start is with spam because that is where this whole conversation came from. In your mind, what is spam?

在比特币网络中，哪些行为算作垃圾信息？

What counts as spam on Bitcoin?

嗯，垃圾信息是指比特币网络中的非原生数据。你可以说不知道垃圾信息是什么，但你知道什么是比特币交易吧？当你下载比特币客户端，收到别人发送的比特币，或向他人转账比特币时——这才是网络的主要用途，即比特币的收发。而不是用来传送图片等东西。那些任意数据通常存储在OpReturn中，比如83字节的数据。

Well, spam is a non native data to the Bitcoin network. So you can say that, you don't know what spam is, but, you know, what is a Bitcoin transaction? If you download the Bitcoin client and you get some Bitcoin, like someone sends you Bitcoin and you send someone else Bitcoin, that is, you know, that's the main use case of the network, sending and receiving Bitcoin. And that is not sending pictures and other things. Like, there there is arbitrary data, and that's usually stored in OpReturn, like 83 bytes of data.

这种情况已经存在很久了，因为你可以存储某些内容的哈希值或双重哈希。开放时间戳就在使用这个功能，其他各种协议也可能嵌入少量数据。但总体上，这已被视为安全且可接受的，获得了普遍的共识/同意。如今'共识'似乎成了敏感词，人们总爱争论'这不是共识规则'——但我们说的不是那个意思。

And it's been like that for a very long time because you can, you know, store a hash of something or a double hash. Open timestamps uses it. Various other protocols might embed a little bit of data. But, you know, that's been generally deemed safe and acceptable with general consensus slash agreement. Consensus seems to be a trigger word these days, like, people like to argue, that's not a consensus rule, like but we're not saying it in that meaning.

我们指的是人们是否认同。而人们确实认同83字节的OpReturn数据是可接受的。但当你开始处理更大块的数据时，我认为这就成了滑坡谬误。你会发现，这次讨论大部分内容其实都在讨论滑坡问题。

We're meaning, like, do people agree? And people agree. Opreterna at 83 bytes is generally accepted as as okay. But, you know, when you start moving towards larger blobs of data, I think that's a slippery slope. And you'll you'll come to see, like, most of this discussion is really about slippery slopes.

到处都是滑坡谬误。

There are slippery slopes everywhere.

这正是我还没完全理解的地方——关于什么是垃圾信息。比如Simple Proof这样的公司，他们使用比特币的开放时间戳存储选举数据。这不是比特币交易，但似乎相当一部分核心社区成员，比如埃里克，对此没有异议。那么我想知道：为什么这不算是垃圾信息？而如果有人把维基解密文件存到区块链上，可能就被视为垃圾信息。这条界线该怎么划？划在哪里？

So this is one of the things that I've I've not fully like, when it comes to what is spam. So a a company like Simple Proof, example, they're using open timestamps for election data in Bitcoin. That's not a Bitcoin transaction, but it seems like at least a decent proportion of the Knott's crowd, Eric, are okay with that. So what I wanna know is why that is not spam, but say someone puts, like, WikiLeaks cables on the blockchain, that might be spam. Like, how do you draw the line, and where do you draw the line?

是的，这是个难以界定的界限。我会说，比如83字节这样的小数据量，或许能说服我接受160字节。但超过这个范围，显然就是在试图存储大量数据块了。

Yeah. It's a difficult line. So I would say, like, something small, like 83. You could convince me a 160 bytes. But, you know, when you go past that, I think it's obvious that you're just trying to store large blobs of data.

可能是图片或其他内容。我认为即便是序数铭文这类也属于垃圾信息，因为它们并非发送比特币，而是利用比特币网络传输其他东西。你可以回溯彩色币的历史，本质相同——只要不损害网络，且我们普遍认同膨胀UTXO集就是损害网络，那么少量数据的时间戳记录并支付手续费是可接受的。

And it could be images, there could be other things. I think even in ordinals, inscriptions, things like that are also spam because they're not sending Bitcoin. They're send they're using Bitcoin to send something else. I mean, you can go back and look at color coins, but same thing, like but I think as long as you're not harming the network, and I think we can generally agree that bloating the UTXO set is harming the network, then it's okay. So if you're time stamping, you're putting very little data, you're paying fees, that's good.

但支付手续费的同时也可能膨胀UTXO集，比如嵌入图片等数据。我认为这就是垃圾信息，关键取决于实际危害程度和操作意图。

But you can pay fees and bloat the UTXO set or, you know, embed data and images and whatnot. And I think that is spam, but it really comes down to a blend of harm and what exactly is your intent.

好的。我们该讨论下Core团队为何要取消OpReturn限制。因为现在单笔非比特币交易就能塞满4MB区块——去年就有矿池（可能是Luxor）这么干过。

Okay. So we should probably talk about why Core are doing this, why they're removing the limit on OpReturn. Because you can already fill a four megabyte block with a single transaction that is not a Bitcoin transaction. Like, we saw this happen last year, I think it was. I think Luxor maybe with a mining pool.

具体记不清了。但他们打包的区块只有一笔交易，内容就是一张图片。Core团队的论点可能是：相比使用见证数据等方式，这是对比特币区块链危害较小的数据存储方式？

I can't exactly remember. But they included a block that was a single transaction, and it was just one image. So I think Core's argument for doing this is that it's a less harmful way of putting data in the Bitcoin blockchain rather than using the witness data or or something else?

对，这是个复杂议题。取消限制的理据在于：既然这种行为已存在，过滤机制就形同虚设。而取消限制反而会助长此类行为——毕竟历史上对此类操作一直存在抵制。

Yeah. I mean, it's a difficult topic. So you can you can remove the limit, and I think the rationale there is that this is something that can be done already. Therefore, you know, the filters don't work. And if you remove the filter, then I believe you're encouraging more of it, especially because there has typically historically been resistance to this type of behavior.

如果Luke当年在Core团队影响力更大、未被边缘化的话，局面可能会不同。但没错，我认为这些都是垃圾信息，包括那些以传销模式滥用比特币的协议——打着比特币旗号实则不然。

And, you know, when Luke was more influential in core and less, you know Ostracized. Pushed off to the side, ostracized, then I think we would have seen a different scenario play out. But, yeah, I would say that stuff is spam and all of the other protocols that are kind of leveraging Bitcoin in an affinity scam type of way. Like, you know, this is on Bitcoin. No.

这不是在比特币上。它是一个指向比特币并指向任意附加在比特币上的数据的独立事物。

It's not on Bitcoin. It's a separate thing that points to Bitcoin and points to, you know, arbitrary data stuck on Bitcoin.

但这某种程度上归结为货币极端主义的论点。像Rizzo这样的人会这样表述。这就是我对Mechanic说的，从意识形态上我同意。我希望比特币成为货币。我同意比特币上存储图片绝非其初衷，我也不愿看到这种情况。

But so this kinda comes down to the monetary maximalist argument. That's the way that someone someone like Rizzo would frame it. And this is where I said to Mechanic, like, I ideologically, I agree. Like, I want Bitcoin to be money. Like, I I agree that pictures on Bitcoin is absolutely not what it was intended for, and I don't like to see it.

我的问题在于现实中我们是否真的无法阻止这种现象。比如过滤器，它们真的有效吗？如果我们总能绕过它们，为什么不采用一种危害最小的方式作为通用做法呢？

My issue is whether there is, like, a reality to that that this is something we can't stop. And, like, filters, do they even work? Like, if we can just get around them, why why not have something that is the least harmful way of doing them as the sort of common way of doing them?

没错。我的意思是，过滤器确实有效。它们长期有效，只是最近我们看到人们开始绕过这些过滤器。对吧？

Right. So, I mean, filters do work. I mean, they've worked for a long time. It's just recently what we see is people are bypassing the filters. Right?

你有Libre Relay吗？它本意是向那些认为过滤器无效的人展示漏洞。但这未必是好事，因为你实际上在证明所有这些标准化特性都可被绕过。它们存在是有原因的——维护比特币作为货币而非任意数据载体的属性，并确保比特币网络作为货币交易工具（比如你我之间的转账）的可用性。所以这在某种程度上是有害的，甚至可以视为一种攻击。

Do you have a Libre Relay? And, you know, that's it it it's kinda meant to show the knots guys your filters don't work. But it's not necessarily a good thing because you're kind of showing that all of these standardness features are bypassable. And they are all there for a reason to maintain Bitcoin as money, not as arbitrary data, and to also keep the Bitcoin network usable for the purpose of money, like transacting between you and I. So it it's kind of bad in a way, and you can view it as an attack.

我认为核心团队喜欢说私有内存池是有害的，但绕过过滤器同样糟糕，因为它们的存在有其必要性。再举个例子：你不能说过滤器无效。还有个叫Dust Relay Fee的过滤器，当年是为防止网络垃圾（如Satoshi Dice）而设，至今仍在阻止网络被垃圾信息淹没。

I think the core side likes to say private mempools are are bad and harmful, but, you know, bypassing the filters is also a bad thing because they are there for a reason. I'll give you another example. Like, you can't say filters don't work. There's another filter called Dust Relay Fee, which was implemented to prevent spam on a network, like, Satoshi Dice back in the day. That is still there, and that is what's holding back the network from being inundated by spam.

但你知道，有人可能出于恶作剧心理开始传播垃圾信息，然后说服某个矿工开采这些垃圾。结果呢？过滤器失效了，因为你削弱了它。所以能绕过过滤器没什么值得骄傲的，这更像是一种礼节问题。

But, you know, someone could for kicks for shits and giggles, you know, start relaying spam and then convince some miner somewhere to start mining the spam. And then guess what? The filter doesn't work because you weakened it. So it's not like something to be proud of that, yeah, you can bypass the filter. It's more of a politeness.

这更像是一种标准，一种尚未达成共识的操作方式，至少目前如此。总体上它应受到尊重，因为这对网络更有利。我常举的另一个例子是交通。如果你去第三世界国家，会看到十字路口的拥堵，因为每个人都想更快到达目的地。

It's more of a standard. It it's more of a way to operate that's not in consensus, at least not yet. And it it should be respected in general because it is better for the network. Another example I like to give is traffic. If you go to the third world, you know, you see congestion in the intersections because everyone's trying to get to where they're going a bit faster.

他们不断超车、闯红灯、无视标志。而在西方国家，通常不会这样，因为人们普遍遵守规则。但这并不意味着你技术上不能闯红灯——你完全可以闯红灯，也可以强行超车。

They're cutting people off, running lights, running signs. And in Western countries, generally, that's not the case because people generally follow the rules. But that doesn't mean you can run you you can't run a red light. You know, mechanically, can run a red light. You can cut someone off.

但如果所有人都这么做，结果会怎样？交通就会退化成混乱的一团糟。所以我想表达的是——就像另一个例子，我记得是Stephen Rivera发过的。

But if everyone does that, then guess what? It degenerates into this messy blob of traffic. So I guess that's my point. Like, there was another example. I think Stephen Rivera posted it.

Maccarillo说过，Peter Todd和另一个人就像是聪明的牛，教会其他牛如何绕过过滤器——他们能打开闸门。你看，这种情况一直存在，人们总能绕过这些限制。但我们不会认同应该绕过粉尘交易手续费，任由海量粉尘交易堵塞网络，可现实却正在发生。

It was Maccarillo saying, you know, Peter Todd and this other guy are are smart cows that show the other cows how to bypass the filters, you know, like, they can you can open the gate. So, you know, it's always been the case. You could always bypass these things. Right? But I don't think we would agree that we should bypass dust relay fee and start seeing a massive amount of dust clog up the network, but here we are.

按你的类比，是否可以说手续费就是过滤器？西方社会不闯红灯不超速的原因，正是因为会被罚款和扣分？

So in your analogy, could you argue that fees are the filter? And the reason that in the West, we don't run red lights and speed and that is because you'll get fined and you'll get points on your license.

我认为这是一部分原因。但更普遍的情况就像购物车的例子——购物车是文明的终极测试：你会把它放回原处，还是随手乱丢？这并不会受到惩罚。

That's one part of it, I think. But generally, like, you know, there's that shopping cart example. Like, the shopping cart is the ultimate test of civilization. Do you put it back, or do you just leave it there? There's no punishment.

对吧？但大多数人会放回去，或至少集中放在某个角落。这是个很好的例子——若想对网络有益，就必须遵循某种程度的行为准则。

Right? But generally, people put it back or they try to aggregate them in one spot. Right? But, that's a good example. You have to follow some, you know, level of good behavior if you want what's good for the network.

我认为另一个例子是移民问题。比如，你是来自英国的对吧？嗯。我可以告诉你，你可以乘橡皮艇横渡英吉利海峡绕过合法移民程序，直接登陆就能享受各种福利，完全规避整个体系。但这真的是件好事吗？

And I think another example would be something like immigration. So, you know, I can also you're from The UK, right? Mhmm. So I can also show you, you can bypass legal immigration by taking a rubber boat across the English Channel and, you know, just landing there and you have all these benefits and you bypass the whole system. But is that necessarily a good thing?

因为如果把非法移民比作网络上的垃圾信息，最终非法移民数量过多会导致系统性社会问题。更长远来看，非法移民人口甚至可能超过本地居民。那么界限在哪里？虽然我们不会击沉那些船只，但必须执行规则，否则移民群体终将成为新的主体人口。垃圾邮件问题也是同理。

Because if you look at immigration or illegal immigration as a parallel to spam on the network, eventually, there's so much illegal immigration that you have systemic societal problems. And further down the road, maybe the illegal migrant population eclipses that of the local population. So, where do you draw the line? Because, you know, you don't want to torpedo the boats coming in, but you have to try to enforce those rules or else eventually, you know, the migrant population becomes the new population. And you could say the same for spam.

最终整个网络将充斥垃圾信息，你我都无法正常交易。这说法可能夸张，但你能明白这个趋势的发展方向。对吧？这是个危险的滑坡。

Eventually, the network is just all dust and spam, and you and I can no longer transact. That's, you know, hyperbole, but you get the general directional tracking of where this is going. Right? It's a slippery slope.

那么你不同意手续费是过滤机制的观点吗？毕竟现在区块空间还很充裕。但如果足够多的金融交易上线，高额手续费自然就会淘汰其他无关内容。

So do you disagree with the idea that fees are the filter then? In the sense that, like, obviously, blocks are pretty empty at the moment anyway. But if enough monetary transactions come online, they will just price out the rest of this stuff anyway.

手续费确实是过滤机制，但不是唯一机制。可能存在扭曲的外部激励，比如某些比特币外部协议可以代付手续费来制造垃圾交易。Ordinal协议就是个例子。

Well, fees are a filter, but it's not the only filter. Right? So you can have perverse external incentives, whereby you have some external protocol to Bitcoin that can pay for the fees and can spam the network. Right? If you look at Ordinal, that's one.

这有点像带图片的ICO。他们出售那些PFP头像、巫师图或猫图，然后就有了资金池，可以不断铸造新东西。更恶劣的情况是，某公司通过ICO募集数十亿资金，在手续费本就很低时创建所谓'空块证明'协议——我在播客里和Cedric讨论过——他们会付钱让矿工挖空块，因为这就是他们链上代币的生成机制设计。

There it's kind of like an ICO, but with pictures, you know. They're selling these these PFPs or whatever, wizard images and cat images, and then they have a war chest and they don't care. They can print more stuff. Or more adversarially, you could have a company that launches an ICO, raises a few billion dollars, and, you know, fees are already low, and they can create a new protocol called proof of empty blocks. I talked about this on the pod with Cedric, and now they're gonna pay miners to mine empty blocks because that is how they designed their mechanism to generate coins on their chain.

明白吗？我们必须把这些视为攻击并加以防范。手续费虽是过滤机制，但并非总是有效。另一个角度是：我们在区块大小之争中扩容削弱了手续费过滤功能，导致费用压力降低。而在29.1版本中，当矿工手续费已处于历史低位且持续下降时，我们还将最低手续费降至每虚拟字节0.1聪。

Right? So there's a lot of things that you have to kind of think that it is an attack and mitigate it. You can say fees are the filter, but it's not always a filter. And the other angle to this is we are weakening the fees as a filter mechanism because we increased the block size during the block size war, so you have less fee pressure. And in twenty nine point one, you lowered the minimum fees to 0.1 sats per V byte at a time in which fees are already historically low and declining for miners.

你可能会争辩说矿工可以设置更高的费率，但实际情况未必总是如此。许多矿池会采用默认设置，其中一些可能更关注短期经济利益，比如多赚100美元手续费，而非长远经济前景。这种行为可能是自我拆台，因为现在手续费已经降到了原来的十分之一左右。即便想恢复到每虚拟字节1聪都很难，更不用说在闪电网络、液态网络带来更多二层流量，以及ETF将更多交易转移到链外的当下提高费率了。这其中存在许多微妙之处和多维考量。

And you can argue, well, the miners could set it higher, but, you know, that's not necessarily how it always goes. A lot of pools will run defaults, and some of them may be more interested in short term economics and getting, you know, $100 more in fees versus the long term economic outlook. And, you know, that can be self sabotaging because now you just lowered fees by a factor of 10 ish. And it's gonna be hard to build that up even back to one sat per v byte, much less higher at a time where you have more l two traffic than ever before with Lightning, Liquid, and you have ETFs that take even more transactions off chain. So there's a a lot of nuance and dimensionality to all of this.

我认为矿工接受低于1聪/虚拟字节的交易是个很有趣且具有参考价值的现象，因为你之前提到过粉尘限制。这种情况其实最近几个月才出现，矿工们开始打包费率不足1聪的交易——尽管我猜测99%以上的节点都不会将此设为默认策略。这不正是过滤机制未必有效的另一个例证吗？

I actually think the miners taking transactions under one sap of eBite is a really interesting and, like, useful comparison here because you were talking about the dust limit before. And I I think this has only really happened over the last few months, but miners have been including transactions that are under a sap of eBite. And they've done that while probably I'm guessing here, but 99 plus percent of nodes would not have that as policy. So is that not another example of filtering not necessarily working?

过滤机制只有在大家普遍认同这些规则时才有效。如果有人通过Libre Relay绕过限制，部分矿工打包这些交易，其他矿工可能会想：我们为什么不也这么做呢？他们或许没做过经济分析，不知道这只能带来100美元左右的收益。

Well, filters only work if we generally agree that these should be the filters. Right? If you are bypassed and Libre Relay can bypass that and some miners mining it, others might figure out, okay. Well, why don't we get that too? And maybe they didn't do the economic analysis and see, well, it's only like a $100.

即便我在挖序数铭文，这点收益也微乎其微。但总体而言，这类行为对整个网络是有害的。这就像在削弱矿工的生存能力，如果币价下跌，他们将更难维持运营。毕竟收入变少了。

Or even if I'm mining ordinals, it's like marginally nothing. But overall, these kind of behaviors are detrimental to the network as a whole. So it it's kind of like bringing down and making it harder for miners if there was a downturn in price that they would be able to survive. Right? Because they're getting less money.

更糟的是，当这种行为通过比特币核心客户端被规范化后，有些人会证明这是可行的。而核心开发团队说过，他们通常会顺应网络实际使用情况。一旦有人开了先例，核心版本就会降低限制标准。粉尘交易也是同样的道理。

But it's also when you when you normalize it through the Bitcoin core client, that's even worse because you have some people showing that, okay, this can be done. And Core has said, you know, we generally try to align to network usage and, you know, what people are actually doing. So you show this can happen and then Core drops the limit. And you can say the same for dust. Right?

比如开始打包和转发粉尘交易，核心团队就会在0.21版本中调整并取消这个限制。我过去就说过，所有这些限制都是护栏，而我们应该拆除这些护栏。

Like, you know, start mining dust and start relaying dust, and then Core will adjust it in three zero point one and, you know, remove that limit. Because I've said that in the past, like, all of these things are guardrails, and we should be removing these guardrails.

你知道矿工为什么要打包这些交易吗？我实在想不通——如果有人只愿意支付0.1聪/虚拟字节，而矿工坚持不收，他们最终难道不会妥协支付1聪吗？我不理解矿工这么做有什么经济动机。

Do you know why the miners are actually including these? Because I can't quite figure that out in the sense that if someone's willing to pay, you know, point one sap of ebay or whatever for a transaction, and miners just say no, are they not eventually just gonna pay one sap of ebay? I I don't understand their economic incentive to do it.

我也不知道。也许他们没有仔细看。也许他们没有做分析。也许他们只是在跟风，看到收入稍微增加了一点，就希望它能带来更多收入。但是，你知道，当出现这样的大幅下滑时，要重新建立压力是很困难的，如果变成默认情况，我相信会更糟。

I don't know either. Maybe they're not looking at it closely enough. Maybe they're not doing analysis. Maybe they're just following what others are doing, and they're seeing, oh, it's a little bit more revenue, and they're hoping it becomes more revenue. But, you know, when you have a sizable drop like that, it's difficult to build back up the pressure, and it's even worse if it becomes a default, I believe.

好的。所以我听起来非常反对这些节点，其实我不是。我只是想深入探究问题的本质。但如果我们看到低于1%的EVAPY交易通过99%的节点，或者不管具体数字是多少，没有将其作为政策运行，那么这些过滤器要产生实际影响，需要达到怎样的普及程度？

Okay. So I'm I'm sounding very, like, anti knots here, and I I'm not. It's just I'm trying to steal myness to get to the to the kind of the bottom of it. But if what we saw the sub one tap of EVAPY transactions going through 99% nodes or whatever it was not running that as policy, what kind of proliferation does not have to get to to actually make these filters impactful?

我见过一些人即使只有80%或90%的比例也会进行计算。但这不重要。我认为这偏离了重点。重点是你总能绕过很多这些标准规则。所有的规则都可以被绕过。

I've seen some people do do a calculation even if they're at 90 80%. It doesn't matter. But I I think this is beside the point. The point is you can always bypass a lot of these standardness rules. All of them.

它们都可以被绕过。所以问题只是我们能否达成一致，重新实施其中一些规则，恢复一些理智。我认为这归根结底是要修复数据载体绕过的漏洞。我不知道。现在很难调和，因为每个人都固守自己的立场。

They can all be bypassed. So it's just a question of can we get some alignment to put some of them back into place and, you know, bring some sanity back. And I think it goes back to fixing the data carrier bypass bug. And I don't know. It's difficult, I think, at this point to reconcile because everyone's really entrenched in their position.

好的。那么你认为核心团队为什么要这么做？

Okay. So why do you think Core have done this?

我不知道。他们的论点是你反正可以这么做，所以我们不应该阻拦。对吧？我认为他们的想法是，至少他们说过，他们不想要私人内存池。所以他们希望统一整个网络的策略。

I don't know. Like, their argument is that you can do it anyway, so we should not get in the way. Right? And their thinking, I believe, is that, at least they've said it, they want they they don't want private mempools. So they want to kind of unify policy across the network.

他们希望——我算是为他们辩护——他们希望那些滥发交易的人会停止使用UTXO，转向OperaTurn，因为他们现在已经移除了一些默认设置。这也降低了直接找矿工广播交易的风险，因为整个网络现在会接受这些更大的OpReturns。

And they hope I'm kinda steel manning for steel steel manning for them, but they hope that the people spamming will stop using UTXOs and go to OperaTurn because now they've removed some of these defaults. And it also reduces the risk that you need to go to a miner directly to broadcast the transaction because the network as a whole will accept these larger OpReturns.

你认为目前比特币持有者与比特币核心开发团队之间是否存在某种脱节？这种脱节是否达到了历史最严重的程度？

Do you think there's kind of a disconnect between Bitcoiners and Bitcoin Core at this point? And and is that the widest that disconnect's ever been?

我认为是的。当前整个比特币核心开发存在巨大的信任危机，这种观点我完全能理解。看看他们的所作所为，某种程度上是在与用户对立，从他们的许多沟通中都能看出这点——几乎像是在俯视用户，实际上你在X平台的帖子里能找到这类言论。但更关键的是，整个局面看起来存在腐败。

I would say so. I mean, there's a there's a massive amount of mistrust on Bitcoin Core development as a whole right now, and I can definitely see that perspective. If you look at what's going on, they're kind of they're kind of antagonistic to users, and you see this in a lot of their communication. It's almost like they look down on users, and actually you can find quotes in in posts on X if you wanna look for those. But there's also the fact that it looks corrupt.

我不想直接断言存在腐败，但现状确实显得可疑——他们通过重写文档来回避修复漏洞。而那些对Ordinals、Taproot等垃圾项目有利害关系的人，不仅无处不在，还活跃在邮件列表里与核心开发者/维护者亲密讨论。所以完全理解为何会出现对核心开发的普遍不信任。再加上他们拒绝撤销更改、坚持默认设置的顽固态度，种种因素叠加，让人们感觉正在遭受精神操控，X平台上的沟通更是放大了这种感觉。

I don't wanna say it is corrupt, but it definitely looks corrupt because they're rewriting documentation to avoid fixing bugs. And there are people that have interest in these spammy projects like Ordinals and Taproot and whatnot, and they're they're all over and they're in the mailing list discussing stuff and very friendly with the core developers and maintainers. So I can definitely see why there's this massive mistrust of core development. And then there's the resistance to roll to undoing their changes and not changing these defaults. So it it kind of altogether adds up and people kinda feel like, you know, they're being gaslit communications on x compound that.

但拒绝撤销某些改动，拒绝放慢或暂停进程——对普通人来说，完全有理由怀疑这背后存在不可告人的动机。

But the refusal to not undo something and their refusal to, you know, slow down or pause is all reasonable for the average person to assume that, you know, there's some ulterior motive going on.

我认为他们不愿推翻既定方案的原因，可能是坚信技术上这是正确解法。但这是否意味着他们忽视了针对其行为的意识形态层面的反对意见呢？

I think probably the reason that they're reluctant to go back on what they've said they're gonna do is because they think technically it's the correct solution. But, again, is that them just missing some of the ideological arguments against what they're doing?

问题在于——刚才上台前我和Adam聊过，我明确表示自己立场是不升级，也会这样建议他人。他却说'你应该直接升级到30版本，反正随时能改回默认设置'。于是我反问他：'既然能改回去，那当初何必做这些改动？'

Well, I mean, here's the thing. Like, I was just chatting with Adam back before I came on, and I told him my position is not to upgrade, and this is what I will recommend to people. And he's saying, you should just upgrade. I can just go to 30, and you can always change the defaults back. So then I countered back and said, well, then why not just not have those changes if people can change them back, you know?

我们陷入了循环论证：他声称'这些改动无关紧要且可逆'，而我坚持'既然无关紧要就别改'。这就是当前僵持的局面。

We're kind of in this cyclical argument. He's saying they don't matter and you can change them back. And I'm saying, well, you can just not change them if they don't matter. Right? So this is this this that we're stuck in this cycle here.

所以这件事没有真正完美的结局，因为归根结底，你可以绕过过滤器。它们并非绝对。因此这更多是比特币持有者的态度问题——比特币是用于数据传输存储，还是作为货币？分歧点正在于此。

So there's no really good end to it because at the end of the day, you can bypass filters. They are not absolute. So it's it's more of a attitude of what Bitcoiners have. Is Bitcoin for data transmission and storage, or is it for money? And this is where the divide is.

要知道，这里还存在滑坡效应的其他角度，因为关于过滤垃圾信息的讨论会让人们认为：既然能过滤这个，就开了先例，政府未来也可能要求你过滤其他内容。但我不认为这必然成立，因为很多垃圾信息是通过数据信封嵌入的，它们某种程度上通过这些信封自我标识。所以你可以判断，比如这是BRC协议，这是铭文，没错是垃圾信息，那就过滤。但这并非我们选择的路径，而Knott正在这么做。但Core团队似乎正在实施更多措施来方便他们发送垃圾信息，因为他们认为这是阻止滥用UTXO的手段。

You know, there are additional angles on slippery slopeness here because the discussion around filtering out the the spam leads people to think, well, if you can filter that, you set a precedent and governments can also tell you to filter other things too down the road potentially. But I don't think that's necessarily true because a lot of these spammy things, they they're embedding data in envelopes, and they sort of self identify them themselves by these envelopes. So you can tell, like, okay, this is a BRC, this is an inscription, and yeah, it's spam, so filter. But that's not the path that we've chosen, and Knott's is doing that. But Core seems to be trying to implement more things to make it more easy for them to spam because they think that is the deterrent to, you know, spamming UTXOs.

但如果他们试图阻止人们运行私有内存池，他们的论点会是因为这加剧了矿工中心化，所以我们应该采取任何能阻止这种情况的措施。这样理解对吗？

But if if they're trying to deter people from running private mempools, their argument for that would be because that increases miner centralization, so we should do anything that sort of prevents that. Is that correct?

矿工中心化是个老生常谈的话题，总被拿来当理由。对吧？就像'我们这么做是为了缓解矿工中心化'。

Well, mining centralization is a common talking point that's always brought up. Right? Like, they we're doing this because we want to mitigate mining centralization.

那么你并不认为...所以为什么你觉得矿工中心化在这个意义上不是问题？

So you don't but so then why don't you think that mining centralization is an issue in that sense?

我确实认为矿工中心化是个问题，但我觉得这只是被用来为他们既定行动找借口。其实他们不必采取这些行动，完全可以回滚。但核心团队的主流观点似乎是：我们不能被迫撤销社区想要的东西。对吧？

Well, I do think mining centralization is an issue, but I think it's just being used to justify actions that they've decided to take. But they don't need to take those actions. They can roll it back. But I think the prevailing argument from the core side is they think we cannot be forced to undo something that the community wants. Right?

对他们而言，这是个滑坡谬误——如果因反对声浪就做出改变，意味着他们没有坚持最绝对的技术正确方案。但我觉得他们忽略了一个关键点：实际交付的安全性。亚当之前也提到过：如果你做了变更却没人使用，那到底给网络带来了任何安全性提升或改进吗？

Like, for them, that's a slippery slope. If there is backlash and they change something, it means they're not following through on the most absolute technically correct solution. But I think they're missing a point here, which is delivered security. And again, this is something Adam has brought up. If you make a change and no one uses it, then did you actually deliver any security to the network or improvement or anything?

我认为答案是否定的。如果你做出改变却无人愿意运行你的软件，那么这改变无异于白费功夫，因为它毫无效果，甚至可能带来负面影响——比如现在内存池会出现大量碎片化问题。

And I think the answer there is no. If you make a change and no one is willing to run your software, then you might as well have just not done it because it has zero effect or negative effects in this case because now you have a lot of mempool fragmentation.

让我夜不能寐的事情之一就是比特币冷存储可能出现的关键错误。这正是Anchor Watch的用武之地。通过Anchor Watch，你的比特币将获得伦敦劳合社A+级保险单的保障，所有比特币都存放在他们的时间锁定多重签名金库中。这样你既能安心知道比特币获得全额保险，又无需放弃托管权。无论你担心遗产规划、租金攻击、自然灾害还是自身操作失误，Anchor Watch都能提供全面保护。

One of the things that keeps me up at night is the idea of a critical error with my Bitcoin cold storage. This is where Anchor Watch comes in. With Anchor Watch, your Bitcoin is insured with your own a plus rated Lloyd's of London insurance policy, and all Bitcoin is held in their time locked multisig vaults. So you have the peace of mind knowing your Bitcoin is fully insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, rent attacks, natural disasters, or just your own mistakes, you're fully protected by Anchor Watch.

全额保险托管服务的费率最低仅0.55%，面向美国境内的个人及商业客户。今天就联系Anchor Watch获取报价，了解更多安全选项与保障详情。立即访问anchorwatch.com。你是否希望不卖出比特币就能获取现金？

Rates for fully insured custody start as low point 55% and are available for individual and commercial customers located in The US. Speak to Anchor Watch today for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage. Visit Anchor Watch dot com today. That is anchorwatch.com. Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin?

Ledden让这成为可能。作为比特币抵押贷款领域的全球领导者，自2018年以来他们已发放超90亿美元贷款，并保持着客户资产零损失的完美记录。通过Ledden，你可获得完全托管的贷款——无需信用检查、无需按月还款，轻松获取美元而不必卖出任何聪（SAT）。自7月1日起，Ledden专营比特币业务，意味着他们仅提供比特币抵押贷款，所有抵押品由Ledden或其资金合作伙伴直接持有，你的比特币绝不会被借出赚取利息。

Well, Ledden makes that possible. Ledden are the global leader in Bitcoin backed lending, and since 2018, they've issued over $9,000,000,000 in loans with a perfect record of protecting client assets. With Ledden, you get full custody loans with no credit checks, no monthly repayments, just easy access to dollars without selling a single SAT. As of July 1, Ledden is Bitcoin only, meaning they exclusively offer Bitcoin backed loans with all collateral held by Ledden directly or their funding partners. Your Bitcoin is never lent out to generate interest.

我最近刚通过Ledden申请贷款，整个过程简单得不可思议。申请流程不到15分钟，几小时后美元就到账了我的账户，流畅至极。若你需要现金又不愿卖出比特币，请访问ledn.io/wbd，首笔贷款可享0.25%优惠。

I recently took out a loan with Ledden, and the whole process couldn't have been easier. It took me less than fifteen minutes to go through the application, and in just a few hours, I had the dollars in my account. It was super smooth. So if you need cash but you don't wanna sell Bitcoin, head over to ledden.i0/wbd, and you'll get point 25% off your first loan. That's ledn.i0/wbd.

比特币正在疯狂上涨，每次牛市都会迎来新一波投资者，随之涌现大量新公司、新产品和新承诺。但如果你在这个领域足够久，就会知道其中多数故事的结局——有些公司偷工减料、拿用户资金冒险，甚至直接跑路。因此在购买比特币时，我唯一推荐的交易所是River。他们真正重视客户利益，以安全透明为核心构建了持久运营体系。

Bitcoin is absolutely ripping, and in every bull market, there's always a new wave of investors, and with it, a flood of new companies, new products, and new promises. But if you've been around long enough, you've seen how this story ends for a lot of them. Some cut corners, take risk with your money, or just disappear. That's why when it comes to buying Bitcoin, the only exchange I recommend is River. They deeply care about doing things right for their clients and are built to last with security and transparency at their core.

选择River，你可以放心知道他们所有比特币都存放在多重签名冷存储中，这是美国唯一提供储备金证明的比特币专属交易所。购买比特币确实没有比这更好的平台了。立即访问river.com/wbd开户，购买比特币可获得最高100美元奖励。听起来你完全不像是支持——抱歉，支持Core派的立场。

With River, you have peace of mind knowing all their Bitcoin is held in multisig cold storage, and it's the only Bitcoin only exchange in The US with proof of reserves. There really is no better place to buy Bitcoin. So to open an account today, head over to river dot com forward slash w b d, and earn up to $100 in Bitcoin when you buy. That's river.com/wbd. So you certainly don't sound like you're pro not sorry, pro core in any way here.

那你为什么不运行Knots节点呢？

So why aren't you running knots?

呃，我认为我不应该非得运行Knots，因为我长期运行Core版本。所以我觉得我可以继续使用旧版的Core，如果有第三个更合理、更保守的版本出现，我才会考虑运行它。

Well, I don't think I should have to run knots because I've been running Core for a long time. So I think I should be able to stick on an older version of Core and, you know, I'll run a third one if there is a third one that is more reasonable and conservative.

但你认为Knots是安全的节点实现吗？还是说单一维护者的风险太高了？

So but do you think that knots is a safe node implementation to be running, or do you think the risk of the single maintainer is too high?

其实我不认为单一维护者本身是问题。问题更多在于代码差异太大——Core和Knots之间有约25,000行代码差异。这是因为Luca在选择性合并代码，而不是完全重构。某些出于安全考虑应该合并的内容可能被遗漏了。

Well, I don't necessarily think the single maintainer is an issue. The issue is more that there's a large difference in code, like 25,000 somewhat lines of code between core and knots. And this is because Luca is cherry picking things to merge. It's not a rebase. And I think you might have some things that could be merged for security reasons that may have been missed.

我没仔细研究过，但对我来说这是不选用Knots的原因。不过不是因为只有一个维护者——要知道Luke是极其出色的工程师，他完全吃透了代码库。当年比特币核心开发组没人认为隔离验证能通过软分叉实现时，正是他提出了解决方案。

I don't know. I haven't looked at it closely enough, but for me, that would be a reason why I would choose not to use knots. But I don't think it's because it's just one maintainer because, you know, Luke is very Luke is a very skilled engineer. He knows the code base in and out. He was the one that figured out the SegWit could be done as a soft fork when nobody else in all of Bitcoin Core thought it could be done.

其他人都觉得必须硬分叉。他对代码库的熟悉程度就像了解自己的手掌纹路。我认为完全可以信任他在比特币软件开发上的判断，毕竟他从最早期就开始参与。

They all thought it was a hard fork. So he knows the ins and outs of the code base like the back of his hand. And I think, you know, I could trust his judgment on, you know, developing Bitcoin software because he's been here since the earliest days.

我同意这点，Luke确实才华横溢，为比特币做过重大贡献。但我仍认为代码合并前仅由一人审核存在问题。比如比特币核心有五六位首席维护者，还有五六十名开发者持续审查代码。

So I agree with that. Like, Luke is clearly brilliant. He's done some great things with Bitcoin. But I still think there's an issue with a single person having eyes on the code before anything's merged. Because, like, with Bitcoin Core, I I there's five or six lead maintainers and then, I don't know, 50 or 60 devs that look at this thing consistently.

毫无疑问，这比卢克可以随时合并代码的系统要稳健得多，即使他很出色。确实，代码需要更多人的审查。

Surely, that is a way more robust system than one where Luke can just merge code whenever he wants to, even if he's brilliant. Like, surely, you need more eyes on the code.

是的，绝对如此。更多的审查总是好的。所以，我认为这是一个合理的观点。人们应该希望对Knots进行更多审查，我相信他们会做到的。

Yeah. Definitely. More eyes is better. So, you know, I think that's a valid point. People should want more review of Knott's, and I think they will get there.

我的意思是，有人正在组建一个新的组织来资助Knots的开发，这将有助于解决这个问题。归根结底，这是一个资金成本的问题。卢克现在是在没有任何资助的情况下独自完成这些工作，所以这些都是可以解决的。但总体而言，拥有多个实现，尤其是多个稳健的实现，是更健康的。这样就不会因为Core现在是参考实现，人们盲目跟随，而强行通过一些不受欢迎的内容。

I mean, there are people putting together, I think, a new organization to fund Knot's development, so that will help with that. I mean, it's really a cost question of funding. Right? Like, Luke is doing it himself without any funding, so that can all be fixed. But I think overall, it's healthier that we have multiple implementations, especially multiple robust implementations because then there's no risk of Core just ramming something through that people don't like because it is the reference implementation right now, and people do blindly follow it.

因此，确实存在某些可能对网络有害的内容被通过的风险。你知道，CV 17144，也就是通货膨胀漏洞，就是在所有开发者和大名鼎鼎的人物的审查下通过的。他们都直接放行了。所以，即使在Core内部也存在这样的风险，人们可能会忽略某些问题。真正的风险在于回音室效应，我认为这是Core的另一个系统性缺陷，他们某种程度上互相放行，有内部圈子和外部圈子，内部圈子可以轻松通过某些内容，这也是一个风险。

So there is a risk that something could go through that is detrimental to the network. And, you know, there was CV, you know, seventeen one four four, which was the inflation bug, and that went through with all the review of all the different developers and all the big names that you would expect. They all waved it right through. So there is a risk there too, even in core itself that, you know, people will miss things. So the risk is really the echo chamber, and I think that is another systemic issue in core, which is they kind of give each other a free pass, and they have their in group and the out group, and the in group can kind of wave things through, and that's also a risk.

这种风险与Knots只有一个或少数维护者的风险一样大。

Just as big of a risk as just one maintainer or a few maintainers is for knots.

不过，关于多个实现的想法，我无法完全理解的是，我们是否因此分散了开发者的注意力？世界上可能只有——我不知道具体数字——100人能够真正从事像Core或Knots这样的项目。如果我们有多个实现，我们是否只是将注意力从Core转移到Knots，再到第三个实现？结果不是拥有一个非常稳健的参考客户端，而是三个都稍逊稳健的实现。

The thing that I can't quite get my head around with the multiple implementations idea though is that are we not diluting developer mindshare with that? So there's probably only I I don't know what the number is. A 100 people in the world that are capable of actually working on something like Core or Knots or whatever it might be. If we have multiple implementations, do we not just remove eyes from core, take them over to knots, and then to whatever the third implementation is? And instead of having one really robust reference client, you have three that are all slightly less robust.

这取决于具体情况。我认为，如果一个客户端是基于最新Core版本进行重构的，那么风险会比Knots采用的挑选和合并变更的方法小得多。但我不认为这是一个问题。我们真正需要的是更多的测试而非开发。所以问题在于，丹尼，为什么我们需要这么多开发者开发这么多功能？

Well, it depends. I think if you have one client that's rebasing off the latest core version, then it's less far less risky than just cherry picking changes and merging, which is the knots method. But I don't necessarily think that's an issue. Like, what we need is more testing than development. So the question is, Danny, why do we want so many developers developing so many features?

你知道，Sailor在老的What Bitcoin Did播客上的一段剪辑正在疯传，他在里面说，我们不想改变现状。比如，你不希望增加越来越多的复杂性，不希望有更多规则。总的来说，对比特币要保持非常保守的态度，因为它曾是1.3万亿美元的资产，现在已超过2万亿美元了。所以它的价值正变得越来越高。

You know, the there's a clip of Sailor on the old What Bitcoin Did pod that's going viral right now where Sailor is saying, you know, we don't want to change things. Like, you don't want more and more complexity, you don't want more rules, You know, you generally want to be very conservative for Bitcoin because, you know, it was a $1,300,000,000,000 asset. Now it's 1 point now it's 2 something trillion dollars. Right? So it's getting more and more valuable.

我认为我们需要变得越来越保守。比如，我们真的需要比特币核心一年发布多个版本吗？还是一年一次？或者每两年一次？我不确定。

I think we need to become more and more conservative. Like, do we even want multiple releases of Bitcoin core a year? Or do we want one a year? Or one every two years? I don't know.

但我可以接受一到两年的发布周期节奏，除非有紧急的关键漏洞修复。因为现阶段比特币并不需要添加那么多新功能。

But I'm okay with, like, a one to two year release cycle cadence, barring any urgent bug fixes for critical vulnerabilities. Because there don't need to be that many features added to Bitcoin at this time.

我完全同意这点，但比特币中仍会存在漏洞。有些问题我们知道迟早需要修改，比如时间戳问题。所以它现在还不能完全固化，有些改变是绝对必要的。

I I don't disagree with that at all, but there's still going to be bugs in Bitcoin. There's also there's things that we know are gonna need changing at some point. Like, there's the timestamp issue. So, like, this can't ossify yet. There are things that we absolutely have to change at some point.

但你认为固化攻击...等等，可能不叫时间戳漏洞。是不是存在某个问题，比如24位之类的限制？

But do you think ossify attack. Right? No. I I may have it may not be called the timestamp bug. Isn't there a problem with, like, some is it, like, the 20 the fact that it's 24 bits or something like that?

让我查一下。

Let me find out.

我不清楚。目前有人在研究时间扭曲攻击。但问题在于，现状使得达成网络升级共识非常困难，尤其是核心团队当前的状态。就像你说的，对比特币核心的信任度正处于历史最低点。

I don't know. There's a time warp attack that's being worked on. Right? But, I mean, there's a problem here too, which is the current state of things is making it very difficult for getting consensus to upgrade the network, especially with core the way it is now. Like, as you said, trust in Bitcoin Core is at an all time low.

他们能通过软分叉来修复某些问题吗？

Will they be able to push a soft fork through to fix something?

我刚快速看了一下。存在一个时间戳漏洞，会在2038年导致比特币和核心系统崩溃，因为它是用32位而非64位编写的。

So I just had a quick look. There's a timestamp bug that will break Bitcoin and core in 2038 because it was written in 32 bit into your other than 64.

好的。对。对。就是那个问题。

Okay. Right. Right. That one.

所以确实存在一些已知问题，需要比特币核心开发者做出调整。但关键在于，你希望看到多大程度的僵化？比如对于契约这类更激进的比特币升级方案，你是打算彻底否决吗？你不想看到这些功能出现在比特币上？

So so there there are things that we know are going to come up that will require developers working on Bitcoin core to make some changes. Yes. But so, like, how much ossification do you wanna see? Like, do in terms of things like covenants and these more out there potential upgrades to Bitcoin, do you are you are you just, like, wiping the board? You don't wanna see that come to Bitcoin?

我不排斥，但现在不是时候。目前没有这个需求。想推行契约功能的人现在完全可以在Liquid网络上实现。明白吗？是的。

I'm open to it, but not right now. I mean, there's no need for it. Like, people pushing for covenants, you can do that on liquid right now. You know? Yes.

你不喜欢Liquid网络。可能你希望主链支持，但应该先验证用例并获得实际应用。比如让某些钱包因特定原因采用它。不能空口说我们需要这个。我认为比特币目前的发展阶段还不该出现这种情况——有人提出需求就立刻修改协议。

You don't like liquid. Probably, you want it on the main chain, but prove out the use case and get some adoption. Like, have people using it for some wallet somewhere for some reason. But you can't just say we need this. And I don't think we're at a a stage in Bitcoin's life cycle where that should be the case where someone comes to the table and say says, I need something, and let's change something.

对比特币这种体量的资产来说，这种要求完全不合理。我同意我们需要修复漏洞，比如2038年的那个问题，但我们还有时间。对吧？

Like, that's just completely unreasonable for an asset that is the size of Bitcoin. And, you know, I agree that we do need bug fixes. Like, there are things that we can fix, but, like, that bug is in 2038. We have time. Right?

在没有紧迫性的情况下，我们可以花更多时间分析比特币的现状，寻找更多漏洞，修复问题，以及解决那些可以等待十年之久的长期性问题。

Where there's no urgency. We can spend more time analyzing the current state of Bitcoin, looking for more bugs, fixing issues, and fixing these longer term bugs that, you know, can wait for a decade.

用Liquid作为比较基准是否公平？比如，我我我喜欢Liquid。我认为它会有用。显然它存在非常实际的应用场景，但它采用的是托管模式，与这些功能直接集成到比特币中并不相同。

Is it fair to use Liquid as a comparison there? Like, I I I like liquid. I think it's gonna be useful. I think there's there's obviously very real use cases for it, but it is a custodial model. It's not the same as these things coming to Bitcoin.

我不喜欢用'托管'这个词来描述像eCash这样的东西，因为托管是个法律术语——意味着你对托管物负有法律责任。我更愿意称Liquid、eCash、Fediments这类为密码朋克资产池（CAPS）。你们只是在做资产聚合与解聚合，虽然安全模型不同，但这并非托管。

Well, I don't like the word custodian for anything like eCash because custodian is a legal term. It's like you have a a legal responsibility to someone because you're taking care of something for them. It is a definition. I would call things like liquid, eCash, Fediments, and the like, you know, Cypherpunk asset pools or CAPS. And, you know, you're just pooling and un pooling together, and there are different security models around these things, but it's not a custodian.

你需要Liquid是因为想要其链上优势。但不可能同时持有比特币和Liquid版BTC，必须做出取舍选择其一，不过随时可以换回，这就是它的实用价值所在。

So you want liquid because you want the benefits of the liquid chain. You can't expect to have your Bitcoin and have the the liquid liquid BTC at the same time. Right? It doesn't work that way. So you have to make a trade off and take one over the other, but you can always swap back and there's utility there.

关键在于，若想基于 covenants 开发应用，现在Liquid已激活简单方案。完全可以在Liquid上构建有市场需求的项目，比如Aqua就是典型案例——我们看到大量Aqua交易正是因为用户需要将Liquid作为闪电网络支付基础，或聚合小额闪电支付兑换回比特币主链以合并UTXO。

But my point is, if you wanted to build something with covenants, there's simplicity now activated on liquid. Go and build a commercial project on liquid that is in demand and people want it. Right? Like Aqua is a good use case. We're seeing a massive amount of Aqua usage transaction volumes because people want to use liquid and being able to use liquid as a base for Lightning payments or aggregating smaller Lightning payments to swap to Bitcoin main chain and consolidate their UTXO.

因此举证责任在需求方，必须证明这是真实需求而非理论空想。就像我们曾紧急激活Taproot，当时认为签名聚合是重大刚需，但现在签名聚合在哪里？我至今未见其踪影。

So the onus is on the people asking for the thing to prove that there is a real use case for it, and it's not just theoretical that they themselves want. Because if you look at Taproot, like, we rushed to activate Taproot, it was a major emergency because we want to have signature aggregation. Where's the signature aggregation? I don't know. I don't see it.

你看到了吗？

Do you?

不。你觉得Taproot是个错误吗？

Nope. And do you think Taproot was a mistake?

不一定是错误，但仓促推进可能是。我的意思是，我们本可以打包一个包含多种功能的软件提案，然后一次性激活它们。对吧？这里没有紧迫性。我认为货币极端主义者正在试图打造一个能延续千年的比特币。

Not necessarily, but rushing it through, maybe. I mean, we could have packaged up a software proposal that did a lot of different things and activated it all at the same time. Right? There is no rush here. I think the monetary maximalists are trying to build a Bitcoin for the next thousand years.

如果你从这个时间线倒推，就不需要每几个月发布一次。明白吗？每隔几年发布一次就足够了。

And if you work back from that timeline, you don't need a release every few months. You know? A release every couple years is good enough.

是啊。我对此没有异议。那你认为我们接下来该何去何从？因为当这场辩论刚开始时，我以为这只是推特上几周的热点话题，然后就会平息。但事实上，双方的敌意反而升级到了疯狂的程度。

Yeah. I don't disagree with that. So where do you think we go from here then? Because when this debate all started up, I thought this was gonna be something that was a talking point on Twitter for a few weeks and then would die down. And if anything, it's ramped up, like, the vitriol from both sides has got to insane levels.

Call 30大概三四周后就要发布了。你觉得会发生什么？

Call 30 is gonna be out in, I don't know, three or four weeks. What do you think will happen?

嗯，我认为不会有很多人运行它。这里存在某种谢林点。有一派不会运行它，他们会坚持使用29版；另一派会运行Notts。我真的看不到有多少人热衷于运行30版，除非他们是核心团队的忠实支持者，想表明自己对核心团队的忠诚和支持开发者，或者他们运行它只是为了气Notts派，因为他们不喜欢那些人。

Well, I don't think a lot of people will run it. I think there is sort of a shelling point here. There is a faction that won't run it. They'll stick with 29, and there's a faction that will run Notts. And I really don't see a lot of people keen to run 30 unless they're just a devoted core supporter and they wanna signal that they're loyal to core and they support the devs, or they're running it to spite the Notts people because they don't like them.

所以大体形势就是这样。如果你纵观全局，会发现非常分裂，这些阵营各自坚守着根深蒂固的信念。但要回答你关于未来走向的问题，我真的不确定。现在明显感觉每个人都选好了立场。所以我在X上发了个有点挑衅的帖子，说UTXO大小会从现在的大约1111GB增长到十年后的128GB左右，然后可能再到1TB。

So that's generally the lay of the land. Like, if you look at the entire landscape, it is very fragmented, then there are these camps that have their entrenched beliefs. But to answer your question about where we go from here, I'm really not sure. It definitely feels like everyone has their side and that's it right now. So I posted a sort of bait post on X about the UTXO size growing from eleven eleven eleven gigabytes now to a 128 in like ten ten ish years, and then maybe to one terabyte.

如果你看看大家的反应，基本上所有人都没说到点子上。他们在多个层面上都理解错了，因为这里面有很多细微差别。我当时正试图告诉你

And if you look at the responses to that, everyone kind of missed the mark. Everyone was like, they they missed the mark on a number of levels because there's a lot of nuance to this. And I was trying tell you

我的想法，你可以指出我哪里理解错了。继续

what I thought, you can tell me where I missed Go the

继续说吧。

go go for it.

因为当我看到这个时，我想到几点：目前是11GB内存，但你仍然可以用4GB内存的机器运行节点。所以我不太明白为什么这是个问题。首先，存储容量会越来越便宜和方便，而且你不需要把整个UTXO集都放在内存里。我不明白这为什么成了问题。

Because when I saw that, like, the the few things I thought is, it's 11 gigabytes right now. You can still run a node with a machine with four gigabytes of RAM. So, like, why I I didn't necessarily know why it was an issue. One, because, like, storage capacity is gonna get cheaper and easier, And, like, I don't you don't need to keep the entire UTXO set in RAM. Like, I I didn't know why it was an issue.

对。我当时是想效仿亚当的做法。亚当发了条推文说他正在运行比特币30版本。这就像往常一样触动了所有人的神经。但他故意没提'核心'这个词，因为他暗示的是运行比特币30，不一定是核心30版本。

Yeah. So I was trying to kinda try to do what Adam was doing. So Adam posted a tweet saying he's running Bitcoin 30. And, you know, that triggered everyone in the usual way that you would expect them to be triggered. But he left out the word core because what he was implying was he'll run a Bitcoin 30, not necessarily core 30.

所以可能是Knots30、Knobs30或其他基于30版本实现的软件。但这说明在他的推文下，各阵营的人都在推销自己的观点。核心派说'看啊亚当站在我们这边'，而Knots派则愤怒地质问'你竟敢运行比特币核心30'。

So it could be a Knott's 30, a Knob's 30, another implementation based off of 30. But it goes to show, like, on his thread, you get the people that are in their camp pushing their view. So then the core camp was like, hey, Adam is on our side, you know, suckers. And then, you know, the the Notts guys are angry, like, how dare you run, you know, Bitcoin Core 30. Right?

但我想通过我的帖子表达的是：如果你真正关心去中心化，关心矿工（特别是小矿工）——这也是核心派为他们改动辩护的理由——那么你肯定希望限制UTXO集的大小。很多人首先就理解错了，以为只是磁盘空间问题，说'硬盘越来越便宜了，你在担心什么？'但我指的是内存问题，特别是对那些想挖矿的人，因为挖矿需要把整个UTXO集加载到内存中。

But for my post, I was trying to get to the the the the point of you if you care about real decentralization, and if you care about miners, small miners, which is the argument that Core is giving for their changes, then you definitely wanna constrain the UTXO set size. So you can so a lot of people first got wrong. They think it's just on disk. Like, oh, hard drive space is getting cheaper, like, what are you talking about? But I was referring to RAM, and I was referring to people that want to mine, because if you wanna mine, you have to load the entire UTXO set in REM.

所以这是为了快速访问吗？

So that it's fast access?

是的。如果你是矿工，无论你是只有几台S9的小矿场还是Bidax用户，你都应该运行比特币核心，将所有UTXO存入RAM以保持竞争力。这其实也是关于内存池策略的争论，为什么不同的内存池策略不好，因为它会拖慢你的速度，但道理是一样的。作为矿工，无论规模大小，你都希望整个UTXO集在RAM中。而在RAM中，它不是11GB，而是50多GB，因为11GB是压缩后的。

Yes. If you're a miner, whether you're a small mining operation with a couple s nines or you're a Bidax user, then you should be, you know, running Bitcoin Core with all UTXOs in RAM so that you're competitive. And this has been an argument about, you know, mempool policy and why it's bad to have divergent mempool policy because you're slowing yourself down, but it's the same thing. You want to have the entire UTXO set in RAM if you're a miner, regardless of your size. And if it's in RAM, it's not 11 gigs, it's 50 something gigs because 11 is compressed.

所以如果UTXO大小呈线性增长，十年后就不是128GB，而是五倍于此。到2040年左右，最多可能达到5TB。这不是最坏的情况，但你明白我的意思。如果你关心挖矿和去中心化，你应该意识到这些，但大家只是说，你错了，你忽略了，这无关紧要。但其实这很重要。

So if you have that linear ish growth of RAM of UTXO size, you know, in a decade, it's not a 128 gigs, it's, you know, five times that. And in, you know, twenty forty something, it'll be, you know, five terabytes at at the max. Not that's the worst case scenario, but you get my point. If you care about mining and you care about decentralization, you should realize these things, but everyone just said, okay, you're wrong, you missed it, and, you know, it doesn't matter. But it does matter.

如果你真的关心，就该自己推导出这个结论，把1+1+1算清楚，结果是3。这确实重要，因为现在UTXO集已经很大了，对任何想运行自己节点的人来说都会是个问题。如果你想要去中心化，他们应该运行自己的节点，而不是仅仅依赖矿池的模板和节点。

And if you care, then you should have come to that conclusion and added one plus one plus one and figured out, oh, it's three. And it does actually matter because the UTXO set is huge now, and it's it's going to be a problem for anyone trying to run their own node. And if you want decentralization, they should be running their own node, not just running, you know, running with a pool and relying on a pool's templates and node.

帮我理解一下，把这些信息放在OperaTurn上，是否不会减少我们的UTXO膨胀，因为人们没有使用不可花费的UTXO？

So help me understand this. Does putting all of this information on OperaTurn not or not reduce our UTXO bloat because people aren't using unspendable UTXOs?

可能会，但UTXO比Opretern更便宜，对吧？我觉得人们已经意识到这点，所以他们在抵制核心，因为这说不通。就像试图用想法和祈祷鼓励人们用Opryturn代替UTXO。这大概也是产生不信任的原因，他们凭什么这么想？

It could, but, I mean, it's cheaper to do UTXOs versus Opretern. Right? And I think people have kind of honed in on that, and this is why they're resisting core because it doesn't make sense. Like, you're trying encourage people with thoughts and prayers to use Opryturn instead of UTXO. And, again, this is probably where some mistrust is brewed because, you know, why would they think that?

这完全说不通。

That's that makes zero sense at all.

那么，为什么用UTXO方式会更便宜呢？

So and why is it cheaper to do it in UTXOs?

因为有折扣。

Because of the discount.

好吧。

Okay.

但我是因为第二个折扣。是的。但与此同时，我认为我们不一定想鼓励更多人往Opera链里塞东西。虽然确实可以修剪Opera链，但那样你运行的就是一个修剪过的节点了。你不能只修剪Opera链部分。

But I because of the second discount. Yeah. But at the same time, I don't think you want necessarily to encourage more people shoving stuff in the Opera Turn too. Because it's true that you can prune Opera turn, but then you're running a pruned node. You can't just prune only the Opera turn.

如果所有人都运行修剪过的节点，那就没有完整节点来启动网络并帮助其他人，你知道的，未来也无法启动新节点了。

And if everyone is running a pruned node, then there is no more full node to boot up the network and help other people, you know, spin up new nodes in the future.

所以如果让三星毛来负责核心开发，假设你今天就是核心的独裁者，你会怎么做？

So if if we put Samsung Mao in charge of Core, you're the dictator of Core today, what would you do?

我不知道。我会撤回一些更有争议的内容，虽然我认为已经造成的损害很难挽回，但我会说对未来要非常保守和谨慎。但如果你问我如何弥合整个分歧，我觉得你不会喜欢这个答案——必须能让卢克重新回归团队才行。

I don't know. I would roll back some of the more contentious things, and I don't think there's much we can do to undo the damage that's been done, but I would say let's be very conservative and very cautious on what happens in the future. But if you were to ask me, like, you know, how do we fix this whole divide? I don't think you'll like the answer. Like, you have to be able to bring Luke back into the fold.

我认为比特币核心团队需要移除许多作为维护者并主导项目发展的人员。而且我不认为这会发生，因为成为维护者有经济激励。你能获得更高报酬，对吧？还能从中赢得声望。

I think Bitcoin Core has to remove a lot of people that are maintainers and have been driving the project. And I don't think that will happen either because there's economic incentives to be a maintainer. You get paid more. Right? And you get prestige from it.

所以只有当某人出于荣誉感才会主动辞职。比如承认'是的，我们搞砸了。我们造成了巨大的混乱，因此我引咎辞职。我会继续为比特币工作，但不再担任那个职位'——但我同样不认为这会发生。我也不认为他们会欢迎Luke回归，更不认为他们愿意回滚这些改动。

So the only way that someone would step down is because of honor. Like, yes, we messed up. We caused a massive clusterfuck, and I'm stepping down because of that. And I'll continue to work on Bitcoin, but I won't be, you know, in that position anymore, and I don't see that happening either. And I don't see them welcoming Luke back either, and I don't see them willing to roll back the changes.

但如果你想弥合分歧，在我看来可行的方式是核心团队部分成员辞职，进行某种内部清理。

But if you wanted to, you know, repair the divide, that's how I would see it happening, that some people in core step down, and there's kind of a housecleaning there.

我仅在2017年分叉战争——铝土矿战争的尾声时期有所关注。虽然当时达到高潮，但冲突其实早已持续很久。你认为这次事件是否可能升级成类似局面，最终导致分叉？

So I was only around for the very end of the fork war the Bauxite Wars in 2017. Obviously, that culminated then, but it had been going on for a long time beforehand. Do you think that this does risk escalating into something similar and we do end up with a fork because of it?

我不这么认为。就像我说的，我不觉得核心团队发布30版本会是世界末日。我们可以统一部分政策，与矿工和矿池沟通——我曾运营过矿池。

I don't think so. I mean, like I said, I don't I don't believe core releasing 30 is going to be the end of the world. I think we can unify some of the policy. We can talk to miners and mining pools. Like, I used to run a mining pool.

你可以和矿池运营者沟通，向他们证明顺应网络需求（目前看来是过滤垃圾信息）更有利。虽然可能有少数坚持者继续挖矿和转发垃圾信息，但总体而言多数人会明白这对网络更有益。我认为可以推动网络发生一些改变。核心开发者的问题在于，他们只会使用现有工具工作——就像立法者只会不断制定法律。

You can talk to people that run mining pools and, you know, show them that it's better to align with what the network wants, which is seemingly filtering of spam. You know, there might be some holdouts and some people, some pools might want to keep mining and relaying spam, but in general, I think it's it's possible that a lot of them would understand that it's better for the network not to do that. And, yeah, I think you can kind of bring about some change to the network. I think the problem with a lot of core developers is you work with the tools you're given. If you're a lawmaker, you know, you're just going to write laws and write more laws.

他们不会废除法律。开发者则持续专注于代码。他们的技能包里通常不包括走出去教育矿工、解释哪些做法有害。所以默认反应就是调整过滤标准来适应现状，而非主动推动变革。

You're not gonna remove them. If you're a developer, you're going to keep focusing on the code. It's probably not in your tool set to go out there and engage and educate and talk to miners and mining pools about what is bad. So I think this is why the the default reaction was, let's just adjust the filters and standards to what is happening instead of trying to go out and affect change.

我认为这次讨论中一个被过度忽视的动态是：并非所有节点生而平等。真正重要的是网络中的经济节点。显然，长久以来（基本上一直如此），它们都在运行比特币核心。你认为其中会有节点转向Knots吗？因为我在卧室里轻松部署10个Knots节点，就能让网络看起来呈现爆发式增长。

I think one of the dynamics that's missed a little bit too much in this conversation is the fact that not all nodes are created equally. Like, the economic nodes are the thing that matter on a network. And, obviously, for a long time, basically forever, they've all been running Bitcoin Core. Do you think any of those will be moving across the knots? Because it's really easy for me to spin up 10 knots nodes in my bedroom, and then it looks like there's massive growth on the network.

当然，确实存在一些真实的有机增长。但你认为那些运营大型经济节点的大企业会转向Knots吗？

And, obviously, there is some real organic growth. But do you think any of the big businesses running big economic nodes will move across the knots?

很难说。不过Ocean矿池那边，应该说很大部分算力都在使用Knots。嗯...我认为不可否认它们现在已是网络中不可小觑的力量。这是好事。

Hard to say. But I mean, Ocean, I would say a lot of the hash rate there is using knots. And Mhmm. I don't think you can really deny that they are a sizable portion of network now. And that is good.

挖矿去中心化是值得肯定的。那些曾在核心派系空谈挖矿去中心化的人，我完全没看到他们以任何形式祝贺Ocean。可见这种分歧很大程度上是私人恩怨——他们因各种理由不喜欢Luke，这种厌恶永远不会改变，自然也不会接纳Ocean。当前的局面确实棘手。

Like, it's good to have mining decentralization. So everyone that was, you know, paying lip service to mining decentralization on the core side, I really don't see them congratulating Ocean in any way. So you can see that a lot of this is a lot of this divide is really personal. They just don't like Luke for various reasons, and they will never like Luke, and they will never like Ocean. So, you know, it's a difficult predicament right now.

现在的情况是，人身攻击远比冷静理性的思考更普遍。你会发现很多帖子的第一反应都是'坚守我方立场'，这绝非推动问题解决的建设性态度。

It seems to be personal attacks and attacks on individuals are more prevalent than actually thinking things through and thinking things through from a, level headed place of calm. And you see that, like, the first reaction to a lot of posts is maintaining my side, and that is not a way for us to move forward.

所以你认为核心矛盾在于Luke这个人？毕竟他确实有些极端观点。Lop刚发了长篇帖子，罗列了Luke过去诸多出格言论。在你看来这就是问题根源吗？

So do you think this really is about Luke as a person? Because he obviously has some pretty wild views. Lop just did a big post where he went through a ton of things that Luke said in the past that are very out there. Is that what is at the core of this issue in your opinion?

不确定，但我觉得更多是人际关系问题。比特币核心团队很多人不喜欢Luke。归根结底我们需要共存，最终也会找到相处之道。抛开正在宣泄的种种敌意，我们之间的共同点其实比想象中多——毕竟，我们都是比特币人。

I don't know. It's it's interpersonal, I would think. It's a lot of these people in Bitcoin Core that don't like Luke. Ultimately, we do need to get along, and I think eventually we will get along. You know, we have more in common with each other, you know, irregardless of all the differences in vitriol being spewed than we would think, and we are all Bitcoiners.

所以，你知道，也许再过几年，一切都会平静下来，大家会相处得更好。然后，你知道，我们可以继续前进。但现在，我认为重要的是要记住，每个人都是为了比特币好。只是他们对什么对比特币最好有不同的看法。是的，也许有些人是为了短期利益做一些事情，但那只是暂时的。

So, you know, maybe in a couple of years, it'll all calm down and, you know, everyone will get along better. And, you know, we can move forward. But for now, I think it's important to keep in mind that, you know, everyone is everyone wants the best for Bitcoin. They just have different views on what is best for Bitcoin. And, yes, maybe some people are doing some things for the lulls, but that is short term.

这种情况不会永远持续下去。

It's not going to last forever.

是啊。粗略的共识总是混乱的。好吧。Samson，你显然在负责Jan三号的事情。一切进展如何？

Yeah. Rough consensus is messy. Alright. Samson, you are obviously fronting up Jan three. How's everything going?

国家层面的采用进展怎么样了？

How's the nation state adoption going?

相当不错。我们刚从巴拉圭回来，在那里取得了一些不错的进展。我们遇到了很多可能会促成比特币债券在巴拉圭落地的重要人物。如果讨论有进展，我们很可能会再次回去。

Pretty good. We just got back from Paraguay, and we made some good progress there. We met a lot of the right people that could potentially make a Bitcoin bond happen in Paraguay. And we likely will go back again if discussions progress.

而且我猜这些国家都在关注特朗普在美国的言论以及他对比特币的倾向。这在你与其他国家的对话中产生了实际影响吗？

And and I assume they've all of these countries have been looking at what Trump has been saying in The US and and him leaning into Bitcoin. Has that made a real impact in your conversations with these other countries?

嗯，我觉得他们有个模糊的概念，但我们常常错误地以为别人知道我们所知道的一切，事实并非如此。很多人甚至不知道比特币ETF是BlackRock最成功的ETF，已经为他们带来了大约2亿美元的利润。人们不知道这些。还有那些行政命令，他们也不知道。所以我们的工作就是去告诉他们这些事情。

Well, I think they have a vague idea, but we often seem to think in a in in a wrong fashion that everyone knows everything that we know, and that's not always the case. A lot of people don't even know that the Bitcoin ETFs are BlackRock's most successful ETF and has generated some 200,000,000 in profits for them. People don't know that. And the executive orders, you know, they don't know that either. So it's kind of our job to go and tell them these things.

如果从宏观角度来看我们的工作，我们就像是一档关于比特币的个性化播客，我们会坐下来与他们交谈，讨论比特币领域发生的一切，并回答问题。而且没有任何问题会因为太基础而不予回答。

So if you look at what we do from a 30,000 foot view, we're kind of like a personalized podcast about Bitcoin that we go and sit down with them, talk about everything that's happening in Bitcoin, and answer questions. And there's no question that is too too noobish to answer.

你知道，2021年当Sailor出现并开始实施策略时，大家都认为机构投资者会蜂拥而入。我们确实看到了一两家，但真正的机构对比特币的接纳实际上直到过去十二个月才出现。你认为国家主体是否会类似，可能我们只是早了一个周期，几年后就会看到许多国家真正大举进入比特币领域？

You know, back in 2021 when Sailor came out and started doing the strategy stuff, everyone was thinking, like, institutions were gonna start piling in, and we saw one or two, and then, like, really, it wasn't until the last twelve months where we've seen real institutional adoption of Bitcoin. Do you think nation states may be similar in the sense that it may we may just be, like, a cycle early, and in a few years, we'll start seeing a lot of these nation states actually piling into Bitcoin?

这个问题其实有两部分。这个周期似乎没有按预期发展，我们落后于计划。按理说现在应该已经出现一轮大涨了，但录制此刻市场反而在下跌。

Well, there's, like, two parts to that question. So this cycle doesn't seem to have played out. We're behind schedule. You know, we should have had a bull run already, like a a massive run up. And, you know, we're down actually at the time of this recording.

所以我认为这个周期（如果你要称之为周期的话）被延迟了，可能因为各种原因会推迟到明年。但国家层面的接纳终将到来，我们正在多线推进，其他公司和人士也在努力。

So I think this cycle, if you wanna call it a cycle, is delayed. It might push into next year for all the whatever various reasons there are. But I think the nation state adoption is coming. We're pushing on a lot of fronts. Other companies and people are pushing too.

目前已有具体案例证明比特币能为国家带来利益。美国的行动尚未在全球范围内产生连锁反应——特朗普确实创建了SBR，但尚未开始购买。我们正与其他国家洽谈类似计划，已有几个国家表态会建立相关机制，我认为这一切即将到来。

There are concrete examples of what Bitcoin can do to benefit a country out there right now. The moves in The US, I think, have yet to propagate throughout the world. So Trump did create the SBR, but they haven't started buying yet. And we are talking with other countries to do the same. There are a few that have said they will create it, and I think it's all coming.

这类变化往往来得迅猛，就像'渐变然后突变'。我认为我们正处于渐变阶段的尾声，突变阶段的起点。单看美国，他们正在推进预算中立的比特币收购计划和比特币法案。所以大规模上涨和国家层面的FOMO恐慌只是时间问题。

It it's really that these things happen very quickly. It's like literally gradually and then suddenly. And I think we're on the tail end of gradually, and we're at the beginning phases of suddenly. And if you look at just The US alone, you know, they're pushing forward on a lot of their neutral budget neutral Bitcoin acquisition and the Bitcoin act too. So I believe it's it's simply a matter of time before we see a massive run up, and we see a massive nation state FOMO, you know, panic.

作为一类主体，你最看好哪些国家？萨尔瓦多表现惊人，不丹也做得很好，美国开始行动。而我所在的英国和现居的澳大利亚，我认为会是这方面的落后者。

Which nation states are you most bullish on as, a category? Because, obviously, El Salvador done incredibly well. Bhutan done amazing. The US is starting to make moves. Countries like The UK where I'm from and Australia where I live, I think are gonna be laggards in this.

我不认为他们会是先行者。你觉得真正的突破会来自哪里呢？

I can't see them being amongst the first movers. Like, where do you think the real progress will come from?

我认为很可能是拉丁美洲。自Jan三项目启动以来我就这么说过，那里是全球最成熟的区域，能借助比特币实现重大变革——因为那里既有能源优势（能源等式中的关键要素），又有总体稳定的政治环境，还有迫切需求。这些因素综合起来，造就了完美的试验田。现在只差最后几块多米诺骨牌倒下。

I think it's likely Latin America. And I've said that since we started Jan three, that it's the most ripe area of the world to significantly do something with Bitcoin because you you have energy, the energy part of the equation. You have the general stability, political stability, and you have the need. So you put all those things together, and it just makes it the perfect place. And I think we just need a few more dominoes to drop.

如果巴拉圭的局势能如我们所愿发展，我认为这将是一块关键骨牌，周边国家很可能也会跟进。

If Paraguay if things pan out in Paraguay the way we hope, I think that's a a big domino, and countries in surrounding in the surrounding area would likely come as well.

说实话，我期待看到国家级的FOMO（错失恐惧症）现象。这是不是意味着你常说的百万美元比特币目标就要实现了？

I mean, I'm excited for the nation state FOMO. That's is that when we actually get the the million dollar Bitcoin target that you always talk about?

拭目以待吧。即便没有国家层面的采用，单凭企业购入也应该实现——每天都有更多公司加入购买行列，市场居然还没爆发才让我震惊。

We'll see. I mean, even without nation state adoption, we should see it too, simply because of the corporate buys. Every day, there's more and more corporations buying, and it just blows my mind that we're not running already.

是啊，确实有点反常。这次周期感觉完全不同。我想到最贴切的形容就是——我的市场直觉完全失灵了。以往牛市时，你总能感知到趋势走向。

Yeah. It is, like, it is a bit strange. This this cycle has felt very different. And and one of the best ways that I found to describe it is, like, my vibes my vibe check is completely gone. Like, in previous bull markets, you get a sense of what's happening.

你能预感到市场即将爆发。但这次我完全摸不着头脑，说不清具体原因，但所有直觉信号都乱了套。

You get a sense of where we're going. You can almost feel it when we're about to run. And this time, I've just got no idea what's happening. And I don't I I can't put my finger on why that is, but my vibes are all off.

是啊。因为你每天都能看到公告说某某策略基金买了这么多币，Meta Planet买了那么多币，这家新公司又在买入，但价格却横盘甚至下跌。这完全说不通，我也确实不知道原因。我觉得可能是多种因素叠加。可能是纸比特币在作祟。

Yeah. Because every day you see an announcement that strategy bought this many coins, Meta Planet bought this many coins, this new company is buying, and the price is going sideways and down. So it makes zero sense, you know, and I don't really have an answer about why. I think it's probably a number of things. It could be paper Bitcoin.

可能是ETF的影响。也可能是像FTX那样赤裸裸的欺诈——某家交易所正在出售他们根本没有的币，等需要兑付提现时再回购补仓。具体我不清楚。但可以肯定的是，每个人心里都隐约觉得哪里不对劲。

It could be ETFs. It could just be outright fraud like FTX. Some some exchange somewhere selling coins that they don't have, and they're buying back when they need to buy back to meet demands for withdrawals. I don't know. But definitely, think everyone has a sense in their head that something is off.

在某个事件爆发、登上新闻头条之前，我们无法确知真相。但我敢说现在距离临界点非常近，随时可能触发。这就像是终极命题。我认为比特币当前的价格状况，确实正处在临界边缘。

And there's no way to know for certain until, you know, something blows up and it's all over the news. But definitely, I would say it puts the suddenly, you know, very close to now, and it could trigger at any time. And that's kind of like the omega thesis. And I think that the current situation of Bitcoin price is definitely, you know, on the verge of omega.

你是有切身体会吗？那你为什么认为存在欺诈？是什么让你觉得市场存在某种骗局？是不是每次牛熊市交替时总会爆发这类事件？毕竟我们过去确实经历过。

Do you're feeling it? You so why do you think there's there's fraud? Like, what what leads you to think that there's some kind of fraud in the market? Like, is there always gonna be blowups whenever we have one of these, like, bull and bear markets? Like, is because we have had that in the past.

你觉得未来还会发生类似情况吗？

Do you think that's likely in the future?

这类事件从未间断过。FTX就是典型案例，他们当时在出售根本不存在的比特币。这种可能性始终存在。

Well, there's always been something. Right? Like, FTX is the perfect example. We saw that they were selling Bitcoin that they did not have. And, you know, that's always a possibility.

综合所有因素来看，我认为肯定存在某些机构在进行异常操作的因素。

And I think of all the factors, it has to be some contributing factor that some entity is doing something weird.

我完全支持。我会准备好爆米花。Samson，在结束前你还有什么想聊的吗？这次对话非常棒。

I'm I'm here for it. I'll have the popcorn ready. Samson, anything else you wanna talk about before we close this out? This has been this has been great.

没有了。我想我们已经涵盖了所有内容。这是一次很好的交流。

No. I think we pretty much covered everything. It's a good conversation.

比特币会涨到一百万美元。Core 30一切都会好起来的。你想运行哪个版本的实现都行。别再对人嚷嚷了。Samson，这次真的很棒。

Bitcoin's going to a million dollars. Everything will be okay with Core 30. Run whatever implementation you want. Stop shouting at people. This has been great, Samson.

非常感谢。在结束前你想让大家关注哪里？

Thank you very much. Where do you wanna send anyone before we do close out?

我在X平台，账号是Exceleon，e x c e l l I o n，你也可以在X上找到Jan three，网址是Jan three com。

I'm on x. My handle's Exceleon, e x c e l l I o n, and you can find Jan three on x two, Jan three com.

完美。好的。谢谢你，伙计。我很感激。这次很有趣。

Perfect. Alright. Thank you, man. I appreciate that. That was fun.

谢谢，Danny。下次再聊。

Thanks, Danny. Next catch you next time.