BTC 極端主義者正在將比特幣變成集中權力的工具

隨著關於比特幣未來的爭論愈演愈烈，以及川普時代的行政命令即將出台，一個令人不安的趨勢正在固化為我認為可能是一個可怕的現實。

As the debate over Bitcoin’s future continues and the executive orders of the Trump era approach, a troubling trend is solidifying into what I believe could become a horrifying reality. The BTC maximalists, in their drastic measures, are fundamentally contradicting the ethos of the technology they claim to champion. This time, they’re not just betraying Bitcoin itself, but they’re also turning away from the principles they claimed to uphold during the Bitcoin Civil War.

隨著關於比特幣未來的爭論仍在繼續，以及川普時代的行政命令臨近，一種令人不安的趨勢正在固化，我認為這可能會成為一個可怕的現實。比特幣極端主義者的極端措施從根本上違背了他們聲稱所擁護的技術精神。這一次，他們不僅背叛了比特幣本身，而且還背離了他們在比特幣內戰期間聲稱堅持的原則。

Like true chameleons, over the past five years, they have completely mutated from advocating for self-custody, self-sovereignty and individual node operation to ensure the system remains decentralized. They have become proponents of the legal confiscation of seized coins to create a national reserve asset and their vision is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the centralized financial systems that Bitcoin was designed to replace. This shift, which is being touted as strategic progress, threatens to undermine the principles of self-sovereignty, transparency, and decentralization that were foundational to Bitcoin’s creation.

就像真正的變色龍一樣，在過去的五年裡，他們已經完全從主張自我託管、自我主權和個別節點運作轉向確保系統保持去中心化。他們已成為合法沒收扣押硬幣以創建國家儲備資產的支持者，他們的願景與比特幣旨在取代的集中式金融體系越來越難以區分。這種轉變被吹捧為戰略進步，有可能破壞作為比特幣創造基礎的自主主權、透明度和去中心化原則。

These contradictions demand our scrutiny. If we don’t address them now, Bitcoin’s promise of financial freedom may become another casualty of the power structures it sought to disrupt.

這些矛盾需要我們認真檢視。如果我們現在不解決這些問題，比特幣對財務自由的承諾可能會成為它試圖破壞的權力結構的另一個受害者。

Confiscation and Contradiction: The case of Ross Ulbricht

沒收與衝突：羅斯·烏布利希案

The idea of rolling seized coins into a national Bitcoin reserve has gained considerable traction since Trump spoke at the Nashville BTC Conference in 2024. This proposal, which effectively turns government confiscation into a celebrated strategy among former libertarian activists, marks a chilling departure from Bitcoin’s roots. These same voices are currently advocating for the release of Ross Ulbricht, the infamous founder of the Silk Road marketplace. Yet, they paradoxically cheer for his seized coins to remain in government custody as part of a state-controlled BTC reserve. 

自從川普在2024 年納許維爾BTC 會議上發表演說以來，將扣押的比特幣轉入國家比特幣儲備的想法獲得了相當大的關注。活動人士的一項著名策略，標誌著與比特幣根源的令人不寒而慄的背離。這些同樣的聲音目前正在主張釋放絲路市場臭名昭著的創始人羅斯·烏布利希。然而，矛盾的是，他們卻為他繳獲的比特幣繼續由政府保管而歡呼，作為國家控制的比特幣儲備的一部分。

This cognitive dissonance is staggering.

這種認知失調是令人震驚的。

How can one simultaneously champion individual freedom while legitimizing state confiscation? It’s like there’s nothing but children in charge…

如何在維護個人自由的同時使國家沒收合法化？好像除了孩子負責之外什麼都沒有...

"Father, everything is going according to plan. Next free Ross and then give them the strategic bitcoin reserve" pic.twitter.com/mgNmbyrpLv

「父親，一切都按計劃進行。接下來釋放羅斯，然後給他們戰略比特幣儲備」 pic.twitter.com/mgNmbyrpLv

Not only is it insane to champion the release of a man in the same breath as you champion federalizing his property, but the precedent this sets is deeply troubling. If governments can seize coins and turn them into state assets with the blessing of BTC’s most vocal advocates, is there any violation of human rights that we can count on them to stand against?

在支持將一個人的財產聯邦化的同時，支持釋放一個人不僅是瘋狂的，而且這種先例也令人深感不安。如果政府能夠在比特幣最有力倡導者的支持下沒收代幣並將其轉變為國有資產，那麼我們可以指望他們反對任何侵犯人權的行為嗎？

Worse, it sends a message that BTC’s rules are malleable when the means serve the powerful. At least, and I say this with a terrible taste in my mouth, I have been predicting it would all end up this way with the purely Machiavellian vipers who hijacked Bitcoin between 2013 and 2017, running the Bitcoin experiment into the ground with their greed, hubris and outright malice.

更糟的是，它傳遞出這樣一個訊息：當手段服務於強者時，比特幣的規則是可塑的。至少，我嘴裡的味道很糟糕，我一直在預測，一切都會以這種方式結束，那些純粹的馬基雅維利毒蛇在2013 年至2017 年間劫持了比特幣，用他們的貪婪將比特幣實驗搞砸了，傲慢和公然的惡意。

Selling Gold for BTC: A new gold standard or madness?

出售黃金換取比特幣：新的金本位還是瘋狂？

Another proposal gaining traction among BTC maximalists is the idea of selling national gold reserves to buy more BTC. Advocates of this strategy argue that BTC’s superior properties make it the logical successor to gold as a reserve asset.

另一項在比特幣最大化主義者中獲得關注的提議是出售國家黃金儲備以購買更多比特幣的想法。這項策略的支持者認為，比特幣的優越特性使其成為黃金作為儲備資產的合理繼承者。

Senator Cynthia Lummis proposes a U.S. Strategic #Bitcoin Reserve funded WITHOUT new money by revaluing gold certificates to market value and exchanging them for #Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/rd9c3O3ywL

參議員辛西婭·盧米斯(Cynthia Lummis) 提議建立一個美國戰略#比特幣儲備，通過將金券重估至市場價值並將其兌換成#比特幣，無需新資金即可資助#Bitcoin pic.twitter. com/rd9c3O3ywL

However, this suggestion ignores basic economic principles, most notably Gresham’s Law, which they often cite as a reason to hold BTC. Gresham’s Law posits that “bad money drives out good money.”

然而，這項建議忽略了基本的經濟原則，尤其是格雷欣定律，他們經常將此作為持有比特幣的理由。格雷欣法則認為「劣幣驅逐良幣」。

Well, with its proven utility and stability operating into the nethers of prehistory, gold embodies the “good money” in this equation. Bitcoin not only lacks the historical provenance to replace gold as a reserve asset, but it has shown that it cannot even resist controversial changes like the addition of RBF, Segwit and Taproot—something that a truly sound money would have been able to resist.

好吧，由於其在史前時期的實用性和穩定性已得到證實，黃金體現了這個等式中的“好錢”。比特幣不僅缺乏取代黃金作為儲備資產的歷史淵源，而且它已經表明它甚至無法抵抗有爭議的變化，例如添加 RBF、Segwit 和 Taproot——而真正健全的貨幣本來可以抵抗這些變化。

Gold’s “Lindy Effect”—the idea that the longer something has existed, the more likely it is to persist—also makes it an enduring cornerstone of the global financial system. To sell gold for BTC is to trade centuries of stability for the volatility and speculative nature of a still-maturing asset. It’s an irrational gamble that prioritizes ideology over sound economic policy. Bitcoin may have immense potential, but replacing gold with Bitcoin as a reserve asset before the latter has proven it has any resilience is reckless at best and catastrophic at worst.

黃金的「林迪效應」——某些東西存在的時間越長，就越有可能持續存在——也使其成為全球金融體系的持久基石。出售黃金換取比特幣就是用幾個世紀的穩定性來換取仍在成熟的資產的波動性和投機性。這是一場將意識形態置於健全經濟政策之上的非理性賭博。比特幣可能具有巨大的潛力，但在黃金證明任何彈性之前，用比特幣取代黃金作為儲備資產，往好裡說是魯莽，往壞了說是災難性的。

Bitcoin’s self-custody crisis

比特幣的自我託管危機

At its core, Bitcoin was envisioned as a tool for global payments, data ownership and financial self-sovereignty. It was meant to replace banks, payment companies, big tech and perhaps even governments as intermediaries in our financial lives. Yet, the current push to position BTC as a national reserve asset contradicts this vision. Instead of empowering individuals to hold and control their wealth, the reserve asset model

從本質上講，比特幣被設想為全球支付、數據所有權和金融自主權的工具。它的目的是取代銀行、支付公司、大型科技公司甚至政府作為我們金融生活中的中介機構。然而，目前將比特幣定位為國家儲備資產的努力與這個願景相矛盾。儲備資產模型不是賦予個人持有和控制其財富的權力，而是