区块链杀手:困扰交易质量的「不可能三角」

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2024-02-05Actualizado a 2024-02-05

Resumen

垃圾邮件、DDoS和微小MEV是未来区块链交易质量的杀手

原文标题:《Transaction quality trilemma - blockchain killers》

原文作者:polynya 

原文编译:Kaori,BlockBeats

在 2021 年十月,我写了一篇关于「交易质量三难问题」的投机性文章。自那以后,几乎所有链都实施了在 0.01 美元至 0.50 美元范围内的最低费用,但仍然有一些像 Immutable X、Solana 或 Arbitrum Nova 等不愿遵从的链,这给了我们一些数据。

如你所知,我不再谈论扩展和基础设施,我在 2021 年写的东西已经被深刻理解和证明,所以我不需要再写它们。我认为在我们在视野中有几乎无限的扩展、一键 Rollup 和庞大的数据层的时候,为应用程序开发者深入研究区块链的基础知识,写关于应用程序和治理的文章更为关键。EigenDA 声称每秒处理 100 MB。通过有状态压缩,这在 EigenDA 上就是 500 万个「TPS」,只是在 Validiums/Optimiums 上结算数据。但这也意味着随着扩展的过度,交易质量三难问题将再次成为一个重要的话题。

一旦你的交易费用大幅低于 0.01 美元,链和链的基础设施就会容易受到垃圾邮件、DDoS 和微小 MEV 攻击的威胁。尤其是如果链还有一个金融生态系统。让我们考虑两个费用在 0.01 美元以下范围内的链 - Arbitrum Nova 和 Solana。出于战略原因,Arbitrum Nova 更多地被推广为游戏和 NFT 链,而 Solana 更像是一个狂热赌场链。显然,两者都有更多的功能,但据我看来,这是它们的主要用途。后者伴随着一个金融生态系统,导致了大量的微小 MEV 和垃圾邮件交易 - 这是我之前描述的「低质量」交易。

但首先是微小 MEV。你的费用越低,就越可能出现低价值 MEV 机会。人们急于抓住这些机会,导致许多交易失败。即使 Solana 和 Arbitrum Nova 也有最低费用,但其他链可能尝试更低的费用,最终可能导致超过 99% 的交易失败、垃圾和毫无价值。

现在,有些人可能会说,有什么问题?让他们尽情垃圾邮件攻击链。有两个大问题:

可持续性与成本:垃圾邮件在整个网络上共享,历史数据可以在短时间内累积到几 PB。像有效性证明这样的创新可以显著减少计算负担,但对于序列生成器/构建器仍然是线性成本,而历史数据仍然是最终瓶颈。通过简单地不处理毫无价值的交易,合法交易的边际成本变得更加便宜 - 对于那些>90% 的交易是垃圾、微小 MEV 或失败的链来说,成本降低了数个数量级。在短期内把这些问题搁置一边很容易,但从长远来看,它们可能会成为致命的弱点。

0.01 美元对于某些用例来说太昂贵了:一些用例需要免费交易。如果你进行 100 美元的 DeFi 交易, 0.01 美元或 0.001 美元之间的差异微不足道,但如果你在链上游戏或社交网络中采取行动, 0.001 美元和 0 美元之间的差异就是一切。

因此,很明显,我们需要解决交易质量三难问题的方案。这就引出了 Immutable X 和 Sorare,它们迄今为止是最好的解决方案。它们提供免费交易,但采用「Web2 风格」的垃圾邮件缓解方法。关键在于提供一条替代的抗审查路径,这是有成本的。这样,你就可以兼顾两全 - 为需要的人提供免费交易,但对于边缘情况提供抗审查性。理想情况下,你可能希望在抗审查的同时提供免费交易,但这更难解决。

实现这一目标的关键是:

a)状态隔离

b)垃圾邮件缓解。

a)是关键的,否则你最终会面临微小 MEV 和无关的垃圾邮件。从理论上讲,这可以在一个链(L2 或 L1)内完成,但目前最好在 L2 上实现,就像 Immutable X 和 Sorare 所示。

如今这里明显的缺点是缺乏可组合性,但解决方案可能是与其他 L2/L1 的受限可组合性。还值得考虑的是,几乎所有需要零费用微交易的可想象用例只需要可组合性 - 社交、游戏等。

垃圾邮件缓解是一个开放性的问题 - 我感觉在开发最佳解决方案方面,还需要进行大量的研究和工程工作。我怀疑这将需要量身定制的解决方案,以适应特定的应用。

最后,对于以高价值金融交易为导向的链,它们对于 0.01 美元左右的费用下限是可以接受的。这足以包括几乎所有有价值的交易,同时减少最小的垃圾邮件或微小 MEV。我不知道最佳的数字是多少,但可能在 0.01 美元至 0.10 美元的范围内。

原文链接

Lecturas Relacionadas

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Hace 9 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 9 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Hace 13 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Hace 13 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHace 14 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHace 14 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片