開發人員因對比特幣核心的有爭議的變化而戰

由於彼得·托德

A heated debate has erupted among Bitcoin developers over a controversial change to the dominant software for full nodes, Bitcoin Core. Since Peter Todd formalized a proposal to remove data limits via OP_Return’s datacarrier outputs, the temperature of discussions rose to incendiary levels on X, GitHub, and the Google Group mailing list.

比特幣開發人員在對全節點（Bitcoin Core的主要軟件）的有爭議的變化中爆發了激烈的辯論。由於彼得·托德（Peter Todd）正式通過OP_Return的DataCarrier輸出刪除數據限制的建議，因此討論的溫度上升到X，GitHub和Google組郵件列表上的燃燒水平。

Less than 48 hours since Protos wrote about this topic, disagreement among developers has skyrocketed. Indeed, it seems like almost every Bitcoin influencer on X and GitHub wants to have their say about what is ostensibly innocuous increase to OP_Return’s 83-byte data limit.

自Protos寫有關此主題的文章以來不到48小時，開發人員之間的分歧飆升。確實，似乎幾乎所有X和Github上的比特幣影響者都希望對OP_ReTurn的83字節數據限制的表面上無害。

The hashtag #FixTheFilters is trending, Bitcoin maximalists are pulling receipts on altcoin promoters, and startups are vying for technological support for their project. In short, the discussion is chaotic and enthralling.

#FixTheFilters主題標籤是趨勢，比特幣的最大主義者正在拔起替代幣啟動子的收據，而初創企業正在爭奪其項目的技術支持。簡而言之，討論是混亂而令人著迷的。

After Peter Todd opened the discussion about pull request (PR) 32359, at least four camps have formed around distinct viewpoints.

彼得·托德（Peter Todd）開放有關拉的請求（PR）32359的討論之後，至少四個營地圍繞著不同的觀點形成。

First, the group advocating for a higher OP_Return data limit is trying to explain the limit’s ineffectiveness and its futility amid plentiful alternatives for data storage elsewhere within blocks.

首先，提倡更高OP_RETURN數據限制的小組試圖解釋限制的無效性及其徒勞性，因為在塊中其他地方的數據存儲方面有很多替代方案。

Second, the opposition is arguing for the limit to remain — usually by alleging that storing arbitrary data via OP_Return violates Satoshi Nakamoto’s intent and the purpose of Bitcoin as a financial network.

其次，反對派主張將限制保留 - 通常是指聲稱通過OP_Return存儲任意數據違反了Nakamoto的意圖和比特幣作為財務網絡的目的。

Third, onlookers, as well as members of the above camps, are criticising the good faith of interlocutors’ arguments, producing historical receipts and airing dirty laundry of supposedly ulterior motives.

第三，圍觀者以及上述營地的成員批評對話者的論點的真誠，產生歷史收入並播放據稱是別有用心的骯髒的洗衣店。

Finally, otherwise undecided observers are concerned with the moderation and platforming of the debate itself, blaming administrators for censoring speech.

最後，否則不確定的觀察者會關注辯論本身的適度和平台，這將管理員責備了審查語音的管理員。

Read More: Luke Dashjr calls Ordinals a spam ‘bug’ that should be ‘fixed’

閱讀更多：盧克·達什（Luke Dashjr

Four camps argue about relaxing OP_Return for non-financial dataA member of the first camp, Chaincode Labs’ Antoine Poinsot, suggested lifting the OP_Return data limit. Not only did Poinsot note that arbitrary data storage is available elsewhere within blocks, he also highlighted that OP_Return data doesn’t benefit from the SegWit discount.

四個陣營爭辯說，對於第一營的非財務數據成員，Chaincode Labs的Antoine Pooinsot放寬了OP_Return，建議取消OP_Return數據限制。 Puinsot不僅指出，任意數據存儲在塊中的其他地方可用，而且還強調說，OP_Return數據並不能從SEGWIT折扣中受益。

In other words, if people want to inscribe media via OP_Return, they have to pay fully-priced transaction fees.

換句話說，如果人們想通過OP_Return銘刻媒體，則必須支付全價交易費用。

Leading the opposition from the second camp, Luke Dashjr and Bitcoin Mechanic explained why the limit should not only remain in place but tighten further. In their typical, fiery communication style, their camp argued for filtering “spam” data from Bitcoin’s ledger and protecting the network as a non-fiat alternative that resists corporate subversion.

盧克·達什吉（Luke Dashjr）和比特幣機械師（Luke Dashjr）和比特幣機械師（Bitcoin Mechangic）領導了對手，這解釋了為什麼極限不僅應該保持到位，而且還要進一步擰緊。他們的營地以典型的，火熱的溝通方式主張過濾比特幣分類帳中的“垃圾郵件”數據，並保護網絡作為抵抗公司顛覆的非備用替代方案。

Someone pushing for a major change to Bitcoin is affiliated with a company whose current exploit of Bitcoin was the motivation for the change.Pointing this out on the github discussion has resulted in me being banned.https://t.co/VAaNByBE5o

有人向比特幣進行重大更改的人是隸屬於一家公司的公司，該公司目前對比特幣的利用是進行更改的動機。在GitHub討論中將其列出導致我被禁止。

— Bitcoin Mechanic (@TheChainCoin) August 17, 2023

- 2023年8月17日，比特幣機械師（@thechaincoin）

Exemplifying the third camp, someone flagged Jameson Lopp’s conflict of interest in an attempt to discredit his argument for data storage leniency. “I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose that you’re one of the VCs backing Citrea,” they pointed out.

有人舉例說明了第三個訓練營，有人標記了詹姆森·洛普（Jameson Lopp）的利益衝突，試圖抹黑他關於數據存儲寬大處理的論點。他們指出：“我認為您可以透露您是VCS支持Citrea之一是適當的。”

Citrea is a for-profit project that publishes zero-knowledge (ZK) data onto Bitcoin’s blockchain and could benefit from lifting OP_Return’s 83-byte threshold.

Citrea是一個營利性項目，將零知識（ZK）數據發佈到比特幣的區塊鏈上，可以從提升OP_Return的83字節閾值中受益。

Others criticised founders and advisors to Taproot Wizards, including pseudonymous Bitcoin influencers who advise the project like Shinobi and Rijndael, due to the project’s support for non-financial inscriptions.

其他人則批評了Taproot嚮導的創始人和顧問，包括該項目對非金融銘文的支持，包括諸如Shinobi和Rijndael這樣的項目的化名比特幣影響者。

Finally, members of the fourth camp criticised the moderation of the discussion itself on GitHub. They likened the moderators to a “cabal of self-appointed politicians” who flagged comments as abusive simply because they pointed out subtext behind arguments.

最後，第四陣營的成員批評了Github上的討論本身的適度。他們將主持人比作“自任命的政治家”的“集會”，他們將評論稱為虐待，僅僅是因為他們指出了爭論背後的潛台詞。

Spamming or storing data: A matter of perspectiveNon-financial data storage on Bitcoin has existed since the genesis block. Satoshi inscribed a newspaper headline into the first block, and Luke Dashjr inscribed Catholic prayers to the ledger in 2014.

垃圾郵件或存儲數據：自創世紀塊以來，已經存在了比特幣上的透視金財務數據存儲問題。 Satoshi將報紙標題刻在第一個街區，盧克·達什（Luke Dashjr）在2014年向萊傑（Ledger）刻有天主教祈禱。

As a matter of norms-setting for modern use, however, Bitcoin Core could be in the process of relaxing a standard relaying protocol that previously limited OP_RETURN data to 83 bytes.

但是，作為現代用途的規範制定，比特幣核心可能正在放鬆標準繼電器協議，該協議以前將OP_RET_RETERN數據限制在83個字節中。

Rather than a few curiosities of early experimentation, this week’s change could allow a considerable quantity of non-financial data to relay easily between nodes. Thereafter, the relaxed limit would become commonplace for mining mempools to estimate fees and prioritise transactions.

本週的變化不是早期實驗的一些好奇心，可以使大量的非財務數據在節點之間輕鬆中繼。此後，放鬆的限制將成為採礦孟買估計費用和優先交易的司空見慣。

This week’s change, therefore, could have lasting effects on block production, templates, and the proliferation of UTXOs.

因此，本週的變化可能會對阻塞產量，模板和UTXOS的擴散產生持久影響。

The debate about compressing pictures, movies, video games, and other non-financial data onto Bitcoin’s ledger erupted a few years ago during an exploit of Taproot for on-chain data inscriptions.

關於將圖片，電影，視頻遊戲和其他非財務數據壓縮到比特幣的分類帳上的辯論在幾年前爆發了Taproot的鏈接鏈數據銘文。

Once again, the same debate is roaring back over this week’s controversial proposal

再次，同樣的辯論是在本周有爭議的提議中咆哮