多方支付渠道：探索可靠性和链上成本之间的权衡

Rene Pickhardt 最近发起了一个帖子，讨论两方和多方（超过两个参与者）支付渠道之间的差异，因为它涉及

Rene Pickhardt recently kicked off a thread discussing the differences between two party and multiparty (more than two participants) payment channels as it relates to his research work around payment reliability on the Lightning Network. He voices a growing skepticism of the viability of that direction for development.

Rene Pickhardt 最近发起了一个帖子，讨论两方和多方（超过两个参与者）支付渠道之间的差异，因为这与他围绕闪电网络支付可靠性的研究工作有关。他对这一发展方向的可行性表示越来越怀疑。

The high level idea of why channel factories improve the payment reliability comes down to liquidity allocation. In a network of only two party channels, users have to make zero sum choices on where to allocate their liquidity. This has a systemic effect on the overall success rate of payments across the network, if people put their liquidity somewhere it isn’t needed to process payments instead of where it is, payments will fail as the liquidity in places people need is used up (until it is rebalanced). This dynamic is simply one of the design constraints of the Lightning Network known from the very beginning, and why research like Rene’s is incredibly important for making the protocol/network work in the long run.

为什么渠道工厂提高支付可靠性的高层想法可以归结为流动性配置。在只有两方渠道的网络中，用户必须在哪里分配流动性方面做出零和选择。这对整个网络支付的整体成功率产生系统性影响，如果人们将流动性放在不需要处理支付的地方而不是原来的地方，那么随着人们需要的地方的流动性被用完，支付就会失败（直到重新平衡）。这种动态只是闪电网络从一开始就已知的设计限制之一，也是为什么像雷内这样的研究对于使协议/网络长期运行非常重要。

In a model of multiparty channels, users can allocate liquidity into large groups and simply “sub-allocate” it off-chain wherever it makes sense to in the moment. This means that even if a node operator has made a poor decision in which person to allocate liquidity to, as long as that person is in the same multiparty channel with people that would be a good peer, they can reallocate that poorly placed liquidity from one to the other off-chain without incurring on-chain costs.

在多方渠道模型中，用户可以将流动性分配到大的组中，并简单地将其在链下“子分配”，无论何时有意义。这意味着，即使节点运营商在向哪个人分配流动性方面做出了错误的决定，只要该人与良好同行的人处于同一个多方渠道中，他们就可以从一个人那里重新分配流动性不佳的人。到另一个链下，而不会产生链上成本。

This works because the concept of a multiparty channel is essentially just everyone in the group stacking conventional two party channels on top of the multiparty one. By updating the multiparty channel at the root, the two party channels on top can be modified, opened, closed, etc. while staying off-chain. The problem Rene is raising is the cost of going on-chain when people don’t cooperate.

这是可行的，因为多方渠道的概念本质上就是团队中的每个人都将传统的两方渠道堆叠在多方渠道之上。通过更新根部的多方通道，顶部的两方通道可以在保持链外的情况下进行修改、打开、关闭等。 Rene 提出的问题是当人们不合作时上链的成本。

The entire logic of Lightning is based around the idea that if your single channel counterparty stops cooperating or responding, you can simply submit transactions on chain to enforce control over your funds. When you have a multiparty channel, each “level” in the stack of channels adds more transactions that need to be submitted to the blockchain in order to enforce the current state, meaning that in a high fee environment multiparty channels will be more expensive than two party channels to enforce on-chain.

闪电网络的整个逻辑基于这样的想法：如果您的单一渠道交易对手停止合作或响应，您只需在链上提交交易即可强制控制您的资金。当您拥有多方通道时，通道堆栈中的每个“级别”都会添加更多需要提交到区块链的交易，以强制执行当前状态，这意味着在高费用环境中，多方通道将比两个通道更昂贵各方渠道在链上强制执行。

These are core trade-offs to consider when looking at these systems compared to each other, but I think focusing exclusively on the on-chain footprint ignores the more important point regarding off-chain systems: they are all about incentivizing participants to not go on-chain.

这些是在比较这些系统时需要考虑的核心权衡，但我认为仅仅关注链上足迹忽略了关于链下系统的更重要的一点：它们都是为了激励参与者不要继续下去-链。

Properly structuring a multiparty channel, i.e. how you organize the channels stacked on top, can allow you to pack groups of people into subsections that have a reputation for high reliability, or who trust each other. This would allow people in these subgroups to still reorganize liquidity within that subgroup even if people outside of it are not responsive temporarily, or go offline due to technical issues. The on-chain cost of enforcing things, while important, is kind of tangential to the core design goal of an off-chain system: giving people a reason to stay off-chain and cooperate, and removing reasons for people to not cooperate and force things onc-chain.

正确构建多方渠道，即如何组织堆叠在顶部的渠道，可以让您将一群人分成具有高可靠性声誉或相互信任的小组。这将允许这些子群体中的人们仍然可以重组该子群体内的流动性，即使子群体之外的人暂时没有响应，或者由于技术问题而离线。执行事情的链上成本虽然很重要，但与链下系统的核心设计目标有点相切：给人们一个留在链下和合作的理由，并消除人们不合作和强迫的理由事物上链。

It’s important to not lose sight of that core design aspect of these systems when considering what their future will look like.

在考虑这些系统的未来时，重要的是不要忽视这些系统的核心设计方面。