隨著契約的肆虐，比特幣開發者爭論僵化與創新

比特幣開發者再次爭論協議中的僵化與創新。這場爭論已經持續多年，但現在已經達到白熱化程度

Bitcoin developers are once again debating the trade-offs between ossification and innovation in the protocol. This debate has been ongoing for several years, but is now reaching a fever pitch as discussions about covenants rage on.

比特幣開發者再次爭論協議中的僵化和創新之間的權衡。這場爭論已經持續了好幾年，但隨著有關聖約的討論愈演愈烈，現在已經達到了白熱化的程度。

At issue is whether core developers should proceed with a new soft fork to enable covenants. Several covenant proposals are now in circulation, ranging in scope from narrow to broad.

問題在於核心開發人員是否應該繼續進行新的軟分叉以啟用契約。目前有幾項契約提案正在流傳，範圍從狹義到廣泛。

Covenants would allow bitcoin users to share unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs). Currently, individual users have access to their own UTXO. But as the cost of transacting on the base layer increases over time due to higher transaction fees, it will become more expensive for individuals to afford bitcoin transactions. If multiple people can share a UTXO, they can split the cost of transacting across the group, allowing more users to access the base layer.

契約將允許比特幣用戶共享未使用的交易輸出（UTXO）。目前，個人用戶可以存取自己的 UTXO。但由於交易費用較高，基礎層的交易成本隨著時間的推移而增加，個人承擔比特幣交易的成本將變得更加昂貴。如果多個人可以共享一個 UTXO，他們就可以分攤整個群組的交易成本，從而允許更多用戶存取基礎層。

One simple application of a covenant would be a payment pool, which allows a group of users to share a UTXO and thereby allocate shares among each other seamlessly. Another application of covenants would be vaults, which would allow you to claw back bitcoin after you have sent it, by temporarily placing the bitcoin in a vault where it sits for a fixed amount of time before finally reaching its destination address. Perhaps the most extreme soft-fork proposal at the moment is OP_CAT, which is the concatenation operator in Bitcoin script. Satoshi disabled this in the early years of Bitcoin to deliberately restrict the capabilities of Bitcoin scripting. That is on the table as well, which would enable covenants along with all manner of innovations.

契約的一個簡單應用是支付池，它允許一組使用者共享 UTXO，從而在彼此之間無縫分配份額。契約的另一個應用程式是金庫，它允許您在發送比特幣後收回比特幣，方法是暫時將比特幣放入金庫中，在金庫中保存一段固定的時間，然後最終到達目的地地址。也許目前最極端的軟分叉提案是 OP_CAT，它是比特幣腳本中的串聯運算符。中本聰在比特幣誕生之初就禁用了這項功能，以故意限制比特幣腳本的功能。這也已擺在桌面上，這將使契約和各種創新成為可能。

The case for covenants is being made by those who wish to expand Bitcoin into new use cases via new second layers and to revive innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem, allowing for new use cases to develop that would in turn attract new users and thus new demand for bitcoin. This all sounds great in theory, doesn’t it? And who would ever oppose innovation?

那些希望透過新的第二層將比特幣擴展到新用例並重振比特幣生態系統創新的人提出了契約的理由，允許新用例的開發，從而吸引新用戶，從而吸引新的需求比特幣。這在理論上聽起來很棒，不是嗎？誰會反對創新呢？

But the truth is more nuanced. Believe it or not, innovation can come at a cost. Bitcoin is on the cusp of attracting trillions of dollars more capital from institutional investors. That capital, more than anything else, is seeking the safest and most sound digital asset. That capital will do more to drive up long-term bitcoin demand than any innovation that we can foresee in the future. And that capital would be at risk if innovation on the base layer had unforeseen second-order effects.

但事實更為微妙。不管你相信與否，創新是有代價的。比特幣即將從機構投資者吸引數兆美元的資金。這些資本最重要的是尋求最安全、最健全的數位資產。這些資本將比我們未來可以預見的任何創新更能推動比特幣的長期需求。如果基礎層的創新產生不可預見的二階效應，那麼這些資本就會面臨風險。

The last two major upgrades to Bitcoin (SegWit and Taproot) were marketed to help with the development of the Lightning Network (by solving the problem of transaction malleability) and enabling more complex financial transactions on Bitcoin. For better or worse, they did open the door for ordinals and inscriptions, whose primary use was to bring NFTs to Bitcoin. Even the most ardent proponents of Taproot and SegWit would not have predicted ordinals and inscriptions. Sure, this attracted new demand from artists who wished to mint their images on Bitcoin as data, but it proves my point that there are always second-order effects from innovation.

比特幣的最後兩次重大升級（SegWit 和 Taproot）旨在幫助閃電網路的發展（透過解決交易延展性問題）並在比特幣上實現更複雜的金融交易。無論好壞，它們確實為序數和銘文打開了大門，其主要用途是將 NFT 引入比特幣。即使是 Taproot 和 SegWit 最熱心的支持者也不會預測序數和銘文。當然，這吸引了那些希望將自己的圖像作為數據鑄造在比特幣上的藝術家的新需求，但這證明了我的觀點，即創新總是存在二階效應。

That innovation is fine on second layers or even on altcoins, but the base layer is the foundation of the entire system. It is crucial to keep that foundation strong. This ultimately reflects my own belief that the primary use case of Bitcoin is sound money. The soundness derives from the inability to change the supply schedule. The biggest difference between the Bitcoin blockchain and the Federal Open Market Committee is that the FOMC changes its mind every six weeks, while the Bitcoin schedule has remained the same since the genesis block.

這種創新在第二層甚至山寨幣上都很好，但基礎層是整個系統的基礎。保持這個基礎牢固至關重要。這最終反映了我自己的信念，即比特幣的主要用例是健全的貨幣。穩健性源自於無法改變供應計劃。比特幣區塊鏈和聯邦公開市場委員會最大的區別在於，聯邦公開市場委員會每六週改變一次主意，而比特幣的時間表自創世區塊以來一直保持不變。

No developer is suggesting changing the supply schedule, but even advocating for soft forks erodes the primary value proposition of Bitcoin: that it is immutable and unchangeable. It’s a slippery slope that isn’t worth taking. As the soft-fork proposals do not directly advance the sound money aspects of Bitcoin, they are not worth the risk.

沒有開發者建議改變供應計劃，但即使倡導軟分叉也會侵蝕比特幣的主要價值主張：它是不可變的和不可改變的。這是一個不值得走的滑坡。由於軟分叉提案並沒有直接推進比特幣的健全貨幣方面，因此不值得冒這個風險。