曼哈頓巨陣本週重返夜空，恆星全食

曼哈頓巨陣本週重返夜空，觀賞恆星全食

Counting the number of transactions per block is actually non-trivial, as transactions themselves have different sizes. Large multisig transactions with multiple signatures and multiple public keys can be quite large, whereas Taproot transactions can be quite small with everything hidden under the hood. Transactions can have one input but multiple outputs; each extra output is essentially another payment to another party and the data size of an additional output is quite small.

計算每個區塊的交易數量實際上並不簡單，因為交易本身有不同的大小。具有多個簽名和多個公鑰的大型多重簽名交易可能非常大，而 Taproot 交易可能非常小，所有內容都隱藏在幕後。交易可以有一個輸入但有多個輸出；每個額外輸出本質上是對另一方的另一次支付，額外輸出的資料量非常小。

With these multiple outputs, a single transaction can actually correspond to multiple payments, such as when a Bitcoin exchange makes a single transaction with multiple outputs to multiple customers. So, there's a wide range of how many transactions you can actually fit inside a block. And the right unit of analysis is not the number of unique users per year, but simply the number of transactions. But regardless, there is a finite number of transactions on Bitcoin per year, and that number is less than the current world population.

有了這些多個輸出，單筆交易實際上可以對應於多筆支付，例如當比特幣交易所向多個客戶進行具有多個輸出的單筆交易時。因此，一個區塊中實際可以容納的交易數量有很多。正確的分析單位不是每年的獨立用戶數量，而只是交易數量。但無論如何，每年比特幣的交易數量是有限的，而且這個數字比目前的世界人口少。

So, back to the original question: Is this a problem?

那麼，回到最初的問題：這是一個問題嗎？

This is not a problem today, since even with ordinals and inscriptions, blocks are not always full. As the blocks start to fill up, the market will clear with higher transaction fees. These higher fees will perform the same role that congestion pricing plays on highways.

今天這不是問題，因為即使有序數和銘文，塊也並不總是滿的。隨著區塊開始填滿，市場將以更高的交易費用出清。這些較高的費用將起到與高速公路擁堵費相同的作用。

High-value customers will be served, and low-value customers will not. This is efficient because the lower value customers simply do not have the willingness to pay the market price.

高價值客戶將得到服務，低價值客戶則不會。這是有效的，因為低價值客戶根本不願意支付市場價格。

This leads to the classic debate between the engineer and the economist. Both see traffic on a highway. The engineer wants to build another road, but the economist wants to charge prices. If the objective is to serve the most users, then the engineer's approach is correct.

這引發了工程師和經濟學家之間的經典爭論。兩人都看到高速公路上的交通。工程師想要建造另一條路，但經濟學家想要收取價格。如果目標是服務最多的用戶，那麼工程師的方法就是正確的。

But this will not eliminate traffic; it will simply end up in an inevitable race to build more and more capacity, as more people will be tempted to drive as the costs are low. If instead the highway adopted congestion pricing, low-value users would substitute away from driving and into other forms of transportation, like walking or biking.

但這並不會消除流量；最終將不可避免地展開一場建立越來越多容量的競賽，因為成本低廉，更多的人會被誘惑開車。如果高速公路採用壅塞收費，低價值用戶就會放棄開車，改用其他交通方式，例如步行或騎自行車。

Taking this to Bitcoin touches the debate on the block sizes. Larger blocks will allow for more transactions per block, no question. More transaction volume will mean more individuals and institutions using Bitcoin, no question.

將其應用到比特幣中就涉及到關於區塊大小的爭論。毫無疑問，更大的區塊將允許每個區塊進行更多的交易。毫無疑問，更多的交易量意味著更多的個人和機構使用比特幣。

But larger blocks also have a negative externality, in that they make the network less decentralized as it increases the cost of running a full node, slows network throughput, and will ultimately hurt Bitcoin's decentralization. The block size wars fought these debates for years, and the small blockers won.

但較大的區塊也具有負外部性，因為它們使網路的去中心化程度降低，因為它增加了運行完整節點的成本，減慢了網路吞吐量，並最終損害了比特幣的去中心化。區塊大小之爭多年來一直在爭論，最終小區塊者獲勝。

(Read the "Block Size Wars" by Jonathan Bier for the full story.)

（閱讀喬納森比爾 (Jonathan Bier) 的《區塊大小戰爭》以了解完整故事。）

I see no problem with the economic solution, namely, higher transaction fees that will allow high-value customers to continue to transact on the chain. Given that consensus today is still for smaller blocks, this means that the major users of the blockchain in the future will likely be institutions.

我認為經濟解決方案沒有問題，即更高的交易費用將允許高價值客戶繼續在鏈上進行交易。鑑於目前的共識仍然是較小的區塊，這意味著未來區塊鏈的主要用戶可能是機構。

I predict Bitcoin will become a settlement layer between banks, with consumer use of Bitcoin shifted off-chain, either through Lightning or other Layer 2 innovations. The higher those transaction fees become, the greater the consumer demand for Layer 2 tech, and therefore the greater the incentive for entrepreneurs to meet that demand.

我預測比特幣將成為銀行之間的結算層，消費者對比特幣的使用將透過閃電網路或其他第 2 層創新轉移到鏈下。交易費用越高，消費者對 Layer 2 技術的需求就越大，因此創業家滿足這項需求的動機就越大。

Those technologies are still working out their kinks, but I am optimistic that they will eventually handle all the consumer demand for Bitcoin off-chain, with the final settlement occurring on chain.

這些技術仍在解決其問題，但我樂觀地認為，它們最終將在鏈下處理所有消費者對比特幣的需求，並在鏈上進行最終結算。

This is still a massive improvement from today, since global settlement by financial institutions on an immutable, distributed, decentralized layer is still a vast improvement over the hot mess of the banks exchanging fiat currencies with each other today, and collecting vast rents in the process.

與今天相比，這仍然是一個巨大的進步，因為金融機構在不可變的、分佈式的、去中心化的層上進行全球結算，相對於今天銀行相互交換法定貨幣並在此過程中收取巨額租金的混亂局面來說，仍然是一個巨大的進步。

Not every human on earth needs to transact directly on chain for Bitcoin to have massive impact.

並非地球上的每個人都需要直接在鏈上進行交易，比特幣才能產生巨大的影響。