臨時錨點：令人驚訝的簡化，將使任何第二層協議受益

使用閃電通道，您必須提前決定單邊平倉交易的費率。由於實際的 UTXO 是多重簽署的，因此通道雙方都必須簽署雙方用於提前單方面關閉通道的交易。

I really thought that we had seen the bottom in terms of Bitcoiners making irrational and ridiculous arguments against improvements to Bitcoin, in order to paint themselves as some kind of righteous underdog fighting against corruption and incompetence from the inside.

我真的認為我們已經看到了比特幣愛好者的底部，他們對比特幣的改進提出了非理性和荒謬的論點，以便將自己描繪成某種與內部腐敗和無能作鬥爭的正義失敗者。

Boy was I wrong.

男孩，我錯了。

So, some things to explain first. With Lightning channels, you have to decide your fee-rate for a unilateral close transaction ahead of time. Because the actual UTXO is a multisig, both parties to the channel have to sign the transactions either side uses to close the channel unilaterally ahead of time. The entire security of Lightning is based on having these. If you ever needed to use one, say because your counterparty is being non-cooperative, you can’t exactly count on them to resign one at a higher fee-rate if you needed it.

所以，首先要解釋一些事情。使用閃電通道，您必須提前決定單邊平倉交易的費率。由於實際的 UTXO 是多重簽署的，因此通道雙方都必須簽署雙方用於提前單方面關閉通道的交易。閃電網路的整個安全性都是基於擁有這些。如果你曾經需要使用一個，比如說因為你的交易對手不合作，你不能指望他們在你需要的時候以更高的費率辭去一個。

This led to problems during unilateral fee closures. If fees were high and came down since you opened your channel, you pay money you didn’t need to. If fees were low and went up, you can’t guarantee that your channel closes in a timely manner. You can’t Replace-By-Fee(RBF) because your counterparty needs to sign, and you can’t use Child-Pays-For-Parent(CPFP) because all of your outputs are timelocked, so nothing spending them will be valid until after the first transaction actually confirms and multiple blocks pass.

這導致單方面收費關閉期間出現問題。如果費用很高，並且自您開通頻道以來費用有所下降，那麼您就需要支付不需要的錢。如果費用較低且上漲，您無法保證您的頻道及時關閉。你不能使用費用替換（RBF），因為你的交易對手需要簽名，你也不能使用兒童支付父母（CPFP），因為你的所有輸出都是有時間限制的，所以花費它們將是無效的直到第一個交易實際確認並且多個區塊通過之後。

Because of this, anchor outputs were created. They were special outputs that exist without timelocks for the sole purpose of being able to spend in a child transaction to fee-bump the Lightning close transaction. These added more capital inefficiency though, requiring a non-negligible amount of satoshis be used to create these outputs.

因此，創建了錨點輸出。它們是沒有時間鎖的特殊輸出，其唯一目的是能夠在子交易中花費以提高閃電關閉交易的費用。然而，這些增加了更多的資本效率低下，需要使用不可忽略的數量的聰來創建這些輸出。

Enter ephemeral anchors, building on the v3 transaction relay and package relay (relaying transactions in the mempool as groups). The idea is to have a 0 value output spendable with OP_TRUE(meaning anyone can spend it). Transactions that have a fee-rate of 0, and include an ephemeral anchor, will be relayed in the mempool as long as there is a child transaction spending the ephemeral anchor output with an appropriate fee-rate.

輸入臨時錨點，它建立在 v3 交易中繼和包中繼（以組的形式中繼內存池中的交易）的基礎上。這個想法是透過 OP_TRUE 獲得可花費的 0 值輸出（意味著任何人都可以花費它）。只要有子交易以適當的費率花費臨時錨點輸出，費用率為 0 且包含臨時錨點的交易就會在記憶體池中轉發。

This allows Lightning channels to sign unilateral closure transactions with no fees, and anyone who needs to use them can simply spend the ephemeral anchor output to set whatever fee-rate is required at the time. This greatly simplifies Lightning closure transactions, and removes capital inefficiencies of existing anchor outputs. An added bonus is that anyone can fee bump a transaction with an ephemeral anchor, not just the channel (or other contract) owners.

這使得閃電通道可以免費簽署單邊關閉交易，任何需要使用它們的人都可以簡單地花費臨時錨輸出來設定當時需要的任何費率。這極大地簡化了閃電關閉交易，並消除了現有錨定輸出的資本效率低下。額外的好處是，任何人都可以使用臨時錨點來進行交易，而不僅僅是通道（或其他合約）所有者。

The ephemeral anchor never even creates the 0 value UTXO in the UTXO set, because it will only be relayed along with a transaction that instantly spends it in the same block.

臨時錨甚至永遠不會在 UTXO 集中創建 0 值 UTXO，因為它只會與立即在同一塊中花費它的交易一起中繼。

So why is this a problem? Or an attack? I have no clue, it’s an amazing simplification that essentially any second layer protocol, or contract built on Bitcoin in general, that uses pre-signed transactions will benefit greatly from. It causes no bloat of the UTXO set, because as is in the name, the outputs used are ephemeral. They aren’t actually permanently created.

那麼為什麼這是一個問題呢？還是攻擊？我不知道，這是一個驚人的簡化，基本上任何第二層協議或一般基於比特幣構建的合約，使用預簽名交易都會從中受益匪淺。它不會導致 UTXO 集合膨脹，因為如名稱所示，所使用的輸出是短暫的。它們實際上並不是永久創建的。

The only arguments I’ve seen are “spam!” Or “Core developers are removing the dust limit!” (A restriction on the minimum value transaction outputs must have to be relayed, and they aren’t removing it for anything but ephemeral anchors, which must be immediately spent by a child to be relayed).

我見過的唯一論點是“垃圾郵件！”或者“核心開發人員正在取消灰塵限制！” （必須中繼對最小交易輸出值的限制，並且除了臨時錨點之外，他們不會刪除任何東西，這些錨點必須立即由孩子使用才能中繼）。

I think we are at a point where we have to seriously consider when it is time to dismiss criticism or complaints surrounding technical subject matter in this space. Or where legitimate criticisms stop being that, and become irrational and illogical crusades against or for personalities instead of reasoned criticism. Because this backlash against ephemeral anchors is incontrovertibly the latter.

我認為我們現在必須認真考慮何時應該消除圍繞該領域技術主題的批評或投訴。或者合法的批評不再是那樣，而是變成針對或支持個性的非理性和不合邏輯的十字軍東徵，而不是理性的批評。因為這種對短暫錨定的強烈反對毫無疑問是後者。

All rational criticism should be welcomed in an open source protocol like Bitcoin, but it's time to stop humoring irrational tribalism with no logical basis as if it is equivalent to legitimate criticism. It’s not, it’s purely a waste of time and a Denial of Service attack against the process of improving Bitcoin.

所有理性的批評都應該在像比特幣這樣的開源協議中受到歡迎，但現在是時候停止嘲笑沒有邏輯基礎的非理性部落主義了，就好像它等同於合法的批評一樣。事實並非如此，這純粹是浪費時間，也是針對比特幣改進過程的拒絕服務攻擊。