Fascinating discussion on ethereum's PoS design here (scroll up and down and through quote tweets, lots of good points made) https://twitter.com/gakonst/st...

这里有关于以太坊PoS设计的精彩讨论（上下滚动并浏览引用推文，提出了很多好的观点）https://twitter.com/gakonst/st...

@kate_sills Blockchains themselves will morph into platforms where only a fairly small number of nodes store the entire history, most regular nodes will store small portions.

@kate\u sills区块链本身将演变为平台，其中只有相当少的节点存储整个历史，大多数常规节点将存储小部分。

@kate_sills Right, it all depends on exactly what the costs are. I just suspect that if blockchains get scalable enough to be long-term usable for financial stuff, they'll also be cheap enough for text-message-sized non-financial stuff.

@kate\u说得对，这完全取决于成本。我只是怀疑，如果区块链具有足够的可扩展性，可以长期用于金融产品，那么它们对于短信大小的非金融产品也会足够便宜。

@thenim9 @provenauthority @TrustlessState @owocki Need a blockchain anyway eg. if you want a persistent account that can survive key changes. From that point, why not lean on it a bit more?

@thenim9@provenauthority@TrustlessState@owocki无论如何都需要一个区块链，例如，如果你想要一个能够经受住关键变化的持久账户。从这一点上讲，为什么不更多地依靠它呢？

@kate_sills It's a mild example but imo the most easily defensible one, of that extra non-minimal chain use not being *strictly necessary* but still being a good idea

@kate\u sills这是一个温和的例子，但我认为这是最容易辩护的例子，额外的非最小链条使用不是“严格必要的”，但仍然是一个好主意

@kate_sills In the ENS example, what I mean is, your combined ENS record is bigger than 32 bytes, and one could make a version of ENS where only the hash is on chain and the record on IPFS. But I think the current approach is better for convenience.

@kate\u sills在ENS示例中，我的意思是，您的组合ENS记录大于32字节，可以创建一个ENS版本，其中只有哈希在链上，记录在IPFS上。但我认为目前的方法更方便。

@kate_sills IPFS for bigger files, of course.

@当然，kate\u会为更大的文件使用IPF。

@kate_sills In general, if you want top quality retrievability guarantees for bite sized chain data, encrypted on chain is a great place to dump it.

@kate\u sills一般来说，如果您想为小规模的链数据提供高质量的可检索性保证，那么在链上加密是一个很好的转储它的地方。

@kate_sills That's not the same, that's actually using the chain for conventionally chainy things. I mean like, if the contents of your sbt are like 10-200 bytes (true for many records), then you should just stick it all (obviously encrypted) on chain to make it easier to retrieve

@kate\u sills这不一样，实际上是用链条来做传统的链式事情。我的意思是，如果您的sbt的内容是10-200字节（对于许多记录都是这样），那么您应该将其全部（显然是加密的）粘贴在链上，以便更容易检索

@llllvvuu @whit3d0t I mean more the records that together make up often quite a bit more than 32 bytes, so in principle they could be replaced by a hash

@llllvvuu@whit3d0t我指的是更多的记录，这些记录一起组成的字节通常比32字节多一点，所以原则上它们可以用散列代替

@provenauthority @TrustlessState @thenim9 @owocki I do actually support hashes on-chain and data off-chain and ZK-provable for most of the use cases!

@provenauthority@TrustlessState@thenim9@owocki我确实支持链上散列和链外数据，并且ZK可用于大多数用例！

@whit3d0t ENS records is a trivial one. Could instead store the hash of the entire set of records on-chain and the individual records on IPFS, but I think the pure on-chain approach is better.

@whit3d0t ENS记录是一个微不足道的记录。可以将整个记录集的散列存储在链上，将单个记录存储在IPF上，但我认为纯链上方法更好。

@TrustlessState @thenim9 Like, I do think that some aspects of a functioning reputation system have to be non-consensual. Otherwise you can't penalize people doing bad stuff.
But you also don't want abuse of power, defamation, competitive attacks, etc to ruin things.
So, a complicated balance.

@像TrustlessState@thenim9一样，我确实认为一个正常运作的声誉系统的某些方面必须是非协商一致的。否则你不能惩罚那些做坏事的人。
但你也不希望滥用权力、诽谤、竞争攻击等毁掉一切。
所以，一个复杂的平衡。

@TrustlessState @thenim9 "Depends on implementation details"

@TrustlessState@thenim9“取决于实现细节”

@thenim9 @TrustlessState Depends on how the NFT is used, how many bytes are in the metadata, and how often it's updated or issued.

@im9@TrustlessState取决于NFT的使用方式、元数据中的字节数以及更新或发布的频率。

@TrustlessState I wasn't referring to you! It's a sentiment I hear from "decentralization but not blockchain" folks all the time.

@我不是指你！这是我一直从“分权而非区块链”的人那里听到的一种观点。

Re: non-financial blockchain use cases. https://t.co/lYZFprXAry

回复：非金融区块链用例。https://t.co/lYZFprXAry

@itsLIRAN I *use* IPFS to store my blog. It has serious UX issues (took ~1h for my last update to propagate). Sticking the blog on-chain would have been way easier.
For blogs, that's unfortunately too expensive, but for short text records the logic applies.

@itsLIRAN我*使用*IPFS来存储我的博客。它有严重的用户体验问题（我的上一次更新传播了约1小时）。把博客链接起来会容易得多。
不幸的是，对于博客来说，这太贵了，但对于短文本记录来说，这种逻辑是适用的。

@itsLIRAN Yeah this is the ideology that I am saying sounds beautiful and sensible in theory, but is false in practice. In reality, blockchains have to shard to accommodate cheap txs anyway, and at that point there is other stuff that you "may as well" just stick on them and that's fine.

@itsLIRAN是的，这是我所说的意识形态，在理论上听起来很美，很明智，但在实践中是错误的。事实上，区块链无论如何都必须切分以容纳便宜的TX，在这一点上，你“也可以”坚持使用其他东西，这很好。

@TrustlessState @pujaohlhaver @Sandeepdesto @cdixon Ultimately I don't think this is an either-or; I think the optimal technical solution includes both a chain and off-chain data and ZKPs over both, and whether you call the result an SBT or a VC is just a matter of which tribe you want to virtue-signal to.

@TrustlessState@pujaohlhaver@Sandepedesto@cdixon最终我不认为这是非此即彼；我认为，最佳的技术解决方案包括链和链外数据以及两者之上的ZKP，而结果是SBT还是VC，则取决于你想向哪个部落发出信号。