首页 > EOS柚子 > 正文

【翻译|Ian】受治理的区块链(二):信任

EOS技术爱好者 2018-07-31 20:29

  版权声明:

  以下内容来自微信公共帐号“EOS技术爱好者”,搜索“EOSTechLover”即可订阅,翻译Lochaiching。转载必须保留以上声明。仅授权原文转载。

  本文原文链接为http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_working draft,由本号“EOS技术爱好者”翻译。

  "EOS技术爱好者"全程由EOShenzhen运营,喜欢我们请为我们投票(EOShenzhen的投票账号:eoshenzhenio)!

  本系列文章第一篇可点击此处,第二篇可点击此处。

  The Governed Blockchain

  受治理的区块链

  作者:Ian Grigg

  翻译:Lochaiching

  III. Trust

  三,信任

  Trust resolves the hard errors

  信任可以解决棘手的难题

  Fixing a black swan that devastates your new blockchain-based business, but maybe not that of others, is a big ask of the community. For your counterparty and your community to make themselves vulnerable to your misfortunes, on your say so, requires trust. They will need to trust you are telling the truth while they agree and implement emergency changes that put all at risk. For example, the 2013 Bitcoin hard fork incident was handled because once the emergency was spotted, trust allowed the key stakeholders to come to consensus quickly[Narayanan, 2015].

  修复一个破坏你基于区块链新的业务的黑天鹅,但可能不是其他人,而是社区的一个巨大要求。对于你的对手方和你的社区来说,让他们在你经受灾难之后站在你这边支持你,这需要信任。他们需要相信你说的是真话,同时他们同意实施紧急措施,这将使所有人都处于危险之中。例如,2013年比特币的硬分叉事件被处理,因为一旦发现紧急情况,信任就会让关键利益相关者迅速达成共识[Narayanan, 2015]。

  Controversially, it only took a very few miners to switch their software version back and force the chain back to the earlier fork - contrary to how we expected decentralisation to play out. A similar process launched the 2016 Ethereum DAO repair, but with less success - although the trust in the dominant stakeholders was enough to make adecision, it wasn't enough to follow through toimplementation. Not all of the community put full trust in the decision, and fought the patch to war cries of “code is law.” The Ethereum forked into two, becoming Etherea.

  颇有争议的是,只有少数的几家矿商将他们的软件版本转换过来,并迫使链回到更早的分支状态——这与我们预期中去中心化的结果相反。一个类似的过程让2016年发生了以太坊的DAO事件,但是没有取得太大的成功——尽管对占主导地位的利益相关者的信任足以做出决定,但这还不足以保证能够完全落实下去。并不是社区的所有人都完全信任这一决定,并为“代码即法律”而战。以太坊分叉为二,变成Etherea。

  Before we ask how the goal should be met we need to be comfortable with the existence of the goal - to solve for the black swan. The challenge for new business is to understand whether the environment supports the resolution of these serious errors: is your counterparty willing to work quickly and fairly to resolve errors? Is your blockchain resilient to external hacks, both before and after? Will a miner return a fat finger error that would otherwise send you broke? Which event has happened in Bitcoin.

  在我们问如何实现目标之前,需要对因为存在目标而感到满意——解决黑天鹅问题。新业务面临的挑战是环境是否支持解决这些严重错误:你的对手方是否愿意快速、公平地解决错误?你的区块链无论是事前还是事后,是否能够抵御外部攻击?一个矿工会不会因为“胖手指”的错误就会破产?比特币到底发生了什么?

  Can you repair a broken smart contract? As of the time of writing, the Etherea do not know the answer to that, and worse, they do not know what happens to a real contract after forking[Grigg, 2017b].

  你能修复有问题的智能合同吗?在写这篇文章的时候,他们不知道这个问题的答案,更糟糕的是,他们不知道分叉出一份真正的合同后会发生什么[Grigg, 2017b]。

  These are billion dollar questions - but they are also hundred dollar questions. Although we came to the question via the utter disaster known as the black swan, for a business, the question is broader: Can you fix problems? How? And how costly? Which latter admits that there is no guaranteed fix, but this we already know - business conducts analysis of its risks.

  这是10亿美元的问题,但也是100美元的问题。尽管我们通过所谓的“黑天鹅”灾难来解决这个问题,但对于一个企业来说,问题会变得更广泛:你能解决问题吗?如何解决?成本怎么样?后者承认没有保证的解决办法,但我们已经知道企业对其风险进行了分析。

  And, this question ultimately reduces to another question: are you with me or against me?

  这个问题最终归结为另一个问题:你是支持我还是反对我?

  To be cooperative or adversarial?

  合作还是对抗?

  Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'

  Don't trust Ferengi who give back money

  Klingon proverb

  不要相信给钱的人

  克林贡谚语

  The incidents above, both successful and debacled, suggest that fixing problems is possible, even if controversial. Business wants us to be able to handle several classes of failure, and in principle, we want detailed answers to a greater or lesser degree for the failures listed above (II. "Error, be gone!").

  上述事件,无论是成功的还是失败的,都表明解决问题是可能的,即使这些方法还存在着争议。企业希望我们能够处理好不同类型的失败,原则上,我们希望对上面列出的失败给出或多或少更详细的答案(II.“错误,不见了!”)。

  The choice is stark: Cooperate or Fight.

  选择是显而易见的:要么合作,要么战斗。

  We can cooperate to solve problems, if we have trust, as did the core devs in 2013.

  如果我们信任彼此,可以一起合作解决问题,就像2013年那时候的核心开发人员一样。

  Or, if we expect insufficient trust on the part of the others, we can fight, as we found with the Mt.Gox, the DAO, the "classics", and a thousand other hacks. Without the expectation of cooperation, in an environment of untrust, your capital can be stolen or destroyed by those who are smarter or more adept than you.

  或者,如果在与我们设想中一样,其他人的信任不足,我们可以与Mt.Gox、DAO、“classic”以及其他上千个其他的黑客作战。没有合作的基础,加上在不信任的环境下,你的资本容易会被比你更聪明或更熟练的人偷走或摧毁。

  Worse, if you can't beat ‘em, you join them: you play it fast, footloose and fancy free, and steal or destroy the capital of others. Either way, the blockchain of adversaries may live on but your own financial future is likely nasty, brutish and short.

  更糟糕的是,如果你不能打败他们,你就会被动加入到他们的行列:你自由自在、随心所欲地并且速度很快地窃取或摧毁别人的资本。无论哪种方式,对手的区块链都可能会生存下去,但你自己的金融未来可能是肮脏的、野蛮的和短暂的。

  To Win or to Lose?

  赢还是输?

  There are other ways to look at this divide. Here’s several taken from varied disciplines.

  还有其他的方式来看待这种分歧,以下的内容是来自几个不同的学科:

  Negotiation Theory谈判理论

  The master negotiator seeks a good trade for both parties in a process calledwin-win. This goal of sharing the win with your other party assumes that there will be follow on trades in some sense - you want your other party to be happy to come back, and also to spread your reputation for fairness far and wide. She wants the same.

  As well as routine business, this theory suggests that cooperative trade with win-win negotiating should be the basis of family and employment negotiations, simply because both of these guarantee that there are new negotiations coming soon.

  主谈判者在一个叫做双赢的过程中为双方寻求一个好的交易。与你的对方分享胜利的结果,假设在某种意义上,会有后续的交易——你希望对方会成为回头客,并帮你传播关于公平的名声。而你的对方和你想要的东西是一样的。

  这一理论认为,除了日常的商业活动之外,合作共赢的贸易应该是家庭和就业谈判的基础,因为这两者都保证了新的谈判即将到来。

  The alternate to win-win is calledwin-lose. For me to win, you must lose, and vice-versa. This negotiation occurs when there is no apparent follow on trade. The problem with this approach is that, for one side to win, the other side has to lose. If you don’t know which it is, then it’s probably you.

  Hence this adversarial approach is reserved for shady business. Especially buying houses, used cars and lawsuits in court are the places where the decision is done on the day, and there is little or no benefit in the future to not fighting for every last crumb.

  双赢的另一种选择叫做赢方-输方。也就是我赢的话,你必须输,反之亦然。这种谈判发生在没有明显后续贸易的时候。这种方法的问题在于,一方要想赢,另一方就必须输。如果你不知道是哪一个是谁,很可能就会是你。

  因此,这种对抗的方式只适用于不正当的商业。尤其是买房子、买二手车和在法庭上打官司,都是当天做出决定的地方,这种未来不争取每一粒面包的形式几乎没有什么好处。

  Economics 经济

  When we can both take something positive from our trade, economists call itproduction, because something extra has been produced by our combined efforts. For example, if one of us has a kitchen, one can provide some ingredients, another has a recipe, and one can cook, we can come together to bake a cake - or cookies, or pie, you pick. The result is that now we have a pie, and that’s better than before. We have produced, and now we cansharethe fruits of that production.

  当我们都能从贸易中得到一些积极的东西时,经济学家称之为生产,因为我们的共同努力产生了一些额外的东西。例如,如果我们其中一个人有厨房,其中一个可以提供一些原料,另一个有食谱,一个可以做饭,你可以选择一起烤蛋糕——或者饼干,或者派。结果是,现在我们有了一个饼,这比以前好多了。我们已经生产了,现在我们可以分享生产的成果。

  The alternate is calledallocation: when someone (else?) has cooked a pie, and we only get to decide who gets which portion. This pie is made, there is no sensible play where we can make a larger pie out of a smaller one. Assuming that we don't walk out with the same sized slice of pie, then one of us is likely to win a bigger slice, and the other must walk out with a smaller slice!

  另一种方法叫做分配:当别人做了一个馅饼,我们只需要决定谁吃这个饼的哪一部分。这个馅饼已经做好了,没有什么更好的做法可以让我们用小馅饼做成大馅饼。假设我们没有拿着同样大小的馅饼走出去,那么我们其中一个可能会赢得更大的一块,而另一个必须拿着更小的一块出去。

  Game Theory 博弈理论

  If a game results in growth it is called anet-positive game. The players come out with a better situation than that which they entered.

  如果一个游戏能带来增长,那它就被称为网络积极游戏。玩家们的表现比他们刚进入的状态还要好。

  The alternate to the net-positive is called thezero-sum gamein which the value at the beginning is the same as at the end. Who benefitted and who lost?

  与净正的交替被称为零和博弈,在这种博弈中,开始时的价值与结束时相同。谁受益了,谁输了?

  Political Theory 政治理论

  Capitalism[Gupta, 2014]: Nationally enforced rule of law creates skin in the game for everyone that goes beyond the current trade. Dishonest statements or lack of integrity can be brought to complaint, but all are vulnerable to the system.

  资本主义[Gupta, 2014]:国家强制的法治为所有超越当前行业的人创造了机会。不诚实的陈述或缺乏诚信会引起投诉,但所有人都容易受到系统的伤害。

  Anarchy: Voluntary rules of interaction leaves no skin in the game beyond the present stake, thus allowing the sharp trader to out-compete the dumb trader. All are vulnerable tocaveat emptor.

  无政府状态:自愿的互动规则在游戏中没有留下任何超越当前赌注的痕迹,从而使精明的交易员比没有那么精明的交易员更有竞争力。所有人都容易受到买者自慎的影响。

  For the entrepreneur, all of these views end up on the same side of the fence - she wants to be on the left side so she can get some certainty about the safety of her investment. In particular, she wants to have her damages looked at in the event of disaster, even if the nominal result of “you lost” is all she gets back.

  对于这位企业家来说,所有这些观点最终都站在了另一边——她希望站在左边,这样她就能对自己投资的安全性有一定的把握。特别是,她希望在灾难发生时,她的损害赔偿能够得到关注,即使“你输了”这种名义上结果是她所得到的全部。

  Taming the Black Swan

  驯服的黑天鹅

  For Alice the trader to know that Bob the entrepreneur is on her side of the fence when disaster strikes is a question oftrust. Building a productive business in complex space, over the long term raises the fear of her capital being raided - can she trust her community to be there when she needs them to help?

  对于交易者 Alice来说,当灾难来临时,企业家Bob因为信任会站在她这边。在复杂的空间里建立一个有生产力的企业,从长远来看,会让人担心她的资本会遭到袭击——她能相信她的社区会在她需要帮助的时候出现吗?

  Trust then is a desirable property. But where does she find it? Is Trust a place, a service or a religion? Can the entrepreneur buy it at the supermarket like I buy beer?

  因此,信任是一种可取的财产。但是她在哪里找到的?信任是一个地址、服务还是宗教呢?企业家能像我买啤酒一样在超市买到吗?

  Thinking about when you and I find trust with each other helps to set a framework[Grigg, 2016]. Game theory tells us that to build up the big trust, we need:

阅读更多

上一篇:你到底想让 ETF 怎样?

下一篇:对EOSForce主网的建议怎么提交?

您可能喜欢:

关于我们联系我们作者投稿
Copyright © 2013 比特巴手机版
币圈人都爱上的网站,新闻行情教程人物测评资讯大全