临时锚点：令人惊奇的简化，将使任何第二层协议受益

使用闪电通道，您必须提前决定单边平仓交易的费率。由于实际的 UTXO 是多重签名的，因此通道双方都必须签署双方用于提前单方面关闭通道的交易。

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.

我真的认为我们已经看到了比特币爱好者的底部，他们对比特币的改进提出了非理性和荒谬的论点，以便将自己描绘成某种与内部腐败和无能作斗争的正义失败者。

Boy was I wrong.

男孩，我错了。

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，首先要解释一些事情。使用闪电通道，您必须提前决定单边平仓交易的费率。由于实际的 UTXO 是多重签名的，因此通道双方都必须签署双方用于提前单方面关闭通道的交易。闪电网络的整个安全性都是基于这些。如果你曾经需要使用一个，比如说因为你的交易对手不合作，你不能指望他们在你需要的时候以更高的费率辞去一个。

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.

这导致单方面收费关闭期间出现问题。如果费用很高，并且自您开通频道以来费用有所下降，那么您就需要支付不必要的费用。如果费用较低且上涨，您无法保证您的频道及时关闭。你不能使用费用替换（RBF），因为你的交易对手需要签名，你也不能使用儿童支付父母（CPFP），因为你的所有输出都是有时间限制的，所以花费它们将是无效的直到第一笔交易实际确认并且多个区块通过之后。

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，创建了锚点输出。它们是没有时间锁的特殊输出，其唯一目的是能够在子交易中花费以提高闪电关闭交易的费用。然而，这些增加了更多的资本效率低下，需要使用不可忽略的数量的聪来创建这些输出。

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.

输入临时锚点，它建立在 v3 交易中继和包中继（以组的形式中继内存池中的交易）的基础上。这个想法是通过 OP_TRUE 获得可花费的 0 值输出（意味着任何人都可以花费它）。只要有子交易以适当的费率花费临时锚点输出，费用率为 0 且包含临时锚点的交易就会在内存池中转发。

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.

这使得闪电通道可以免费签署单边关闭交易，任何需要使用它们的人都可以简单地花费临时锚输出来设置当时需要的任何费率。这极大地简化了闪电关闭交易，并消除了现有锚定输出的资本效率低下。额外的好处是，任何人都可以使用临时锚点来进行交易，而不仅仅是通道（或其他合约）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.

临时锚甚至永远不会在 UTXO 集中创建 0 值 UTXO，因为它只会与立即在同一块中花费它的交易一起中继。

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.

那么为什么这是一个问题呢？还是攻击？我不知道，这是一个惊人的简化，基本上任何第二层协议或一般基于比特币构建的合约，使用预签名交易都会从中受益匪浅。它不会导致 UTXO 集膨胀，因为正如名称所示，所使用的输出是短暂的。它们实际上并不是永久创建的。

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).

我见过的唯一论点是“垃圾邮件！”或者“核心开发人员正在取消灰尘限制！” （必须中继对最小交易输出值的限制，并且除了临时锚点之外，他们不会删除任何东西，这些锚点必须立即由孩子使用才能中继）。

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.

我认为我们现在必须认真考虑何时应该消除围绕该领域技术主题的批评或投诉。或者合法的批评不再是那样，而是变成针对或支持个性的非理性和不合逻辑的十字军东征，而不是理性的批评。因为这种对短暂锚定的强烈反对毫无疑问是后者。

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.

所有理性的批评都应该在像比特币这样的开源协议中受到欢迎，但现在是时候停止嘲笑没有逻辑基础的非理性部落主义了，就好像它等同于合法的批评一样。事实并非如此，这纯粹是浪费时间，也是针对比特币改进过程的拒绝服务攻击。