首頁 > EOS柚子 > 正文

【翻譯|Ian】受治理的區塊鏈(二):信任

EOS技術愛好者  2018-07-31  EOS/EOS柚子欄目  

  版權聲明:

  以下內容來自微信公共帳號“EOS技術愛好者”,搜索“EOSTechLover”即可訂閱,翻譯Lochaiching。轉載必須保留以上聲明。僅授權原文轉載。

  本文原文鏈接為http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_working draft,由本號“EOS技術愛好者”翻譯。

  "EOS技術愛好者"全程由EOShenzhen運營,喜歡我們請為我們投票(EOShenzhen的投票賬號:eoshenzhenio)!

  本系列文章第一篇可點擊此處,第二篇可點擊此處。

  The Governed Blockchain

  受治理的區塊鏈

  作者:Ian Grigg

  翻譯:Lochaiching

  III. Trust

  三,信任

  Trust resolves the hard errors

  信任可以解決棘手的難題

  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].

  修復一個破壞你基于區塊鏈新的業務的黑天鵝,但可能不是其他人,而是社區的一個巨大要求。對于你的對手方和你的社區來說,讓他們在你經受災難之后站在你這邊支持你,這需要信任。他們需要相信你說的是真話,同時他們同意實施緊急措施,這將使所有人都處于危險之中。例如,2013年比特幣的硬分叉事件被處理,因為一旦發現緊急情況,信任就會讓關鍵利益相關者迅速達成共識[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.

  頗有爭議的是,只有少數的幾家礦商將他們的軟件版本轉換過來,并迫使鏈回到更早的分支狀態——這與我們預期中去中心化的結果相反。一個類似的過程讓2016年發生了以太坊的DAO事件,但是沒有取得太大的成功——盡管對占主導地位的利益相關者的信任足以做出決定,但這還不足以保證能夠完全落實下去。并不是社區的所有人都完全信任這一決定,并為“代碼即法律”而戰。以太坊分叉為二,變成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.

  在我們問如何實現目標之前,需要對因為存在目標而感到滿意——解決黑天鵝問題。新業務面臨的挑戰是環境是否支持解決這些嚴重錯誤:你的對手方是否愿意快速、公平地解決錯誤?你的區塊鏈無論是事前還是事后,是否能夠抵御外部攻擊?一個礦工會不會因為“胖手指”的錯誤就會破產?比特幣到底發生了什么?

  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].

  你能修復有問題的智能合同嗎?在寫這篇文章的時候,他們不知道這個問題的答案,更糟糕的是,他們不知道分叉出一份真正的合同后會發生什么[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.

  這是10億美元的問題,但也是100美元的問題。盡管我們通過所謂的“黑天鵝”災難來解決這個問題,但對于一個企業來說,問題會變得更廣泛:你能解決問題嗎?如何解決?成本怎么樣?后者承認沒有保證的解決辦法,但我們已經知道企業對其風險進行了分析。

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

  這個問題最終歸結為另一個問題:你是支持我還是反對我?

  To be cooperative or adversarial?

  合作還是對抗?

  Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'

  Don't trust Ferengi who give back money

  Klingon proverb

  不要相信給錢的人

  克林貢諺語

  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,無論是成功的還是失敗的,都表明解決問題是可能的,即使這些方法還存在著爭議。企業希望我們能夠處理好不同類型的失敗,原則上,我們希望對上面列出的失敗給出或多或少更詳細的答案(II.“錯誤,不見了!”)。

  The choice is stark: Cooperate or Fight.

  選擇是顯而易見的:要么合作,要么戰斗。

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

  如果我們信任彼此,可以一起合作解決問題,就像2013年那時候的核心開發人員一樣。

  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,如果在與我們設想中一樣,其他人的信任不足,我們可以與Mt.Gox、DAO、“classic”以及其他上千個其他的黑客作戰。沒有合作的基礎,加上在不信任的環境下,你的資本容易會被比你更聰明或更熟練的人偷走或摧毀。

  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,如果你不能打敗他們,你就會被動加入到他們的行列:你自由自在、隨心所欲地并且速度很快地竊取或摧毀別人的資本。無論哪種方式,對手的區塊鏈都可能會生存下去,但你自己的金融未來可能是骯臟的、野蠻的和短暫的。

  To Win or to Lose?

  贏還是輸?

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

  還有其他的方式來看待這種分歧,以下的內容是來自幾個不同的學科:

  Negotiation Theory談判理論

  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.

  主談判者在一個叫做雙贏的過程中為雙方尋求一個好的交易。與你的對方分享勝利的結果,假設在某種意義上,會有后續的交易——你希望對方會成為回頭客,并幫你傳播關于公平的名聲。而你的對方和你想要的東西是一樣的。

  這一理論認為,除了日常的商業活動之外,合作共贏的貿易應該是家庭和就業談判的基礎,因為這兩者都保證了新的談判即將到來。

  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.

  雙贏的另一種選擇叫做贏方-輸方。也就是我贏的話,你必須輸,反之亦然。這種談判發生在沒有明顯后續貿易的時候。這種方法的問題在于,一方要想贏,另一方就必須輸。如果你不知道是哪一個是誰,很可能就會是你。

  因此,這種對抗的方式只適用于不正當的商業。尤其是買房子、買二手車和在法庭上打官司,都是當天做出決定的地方,這種未來不爭取每一粒面包的形式幾乎沒有什么好處。

  Economics 經濟

  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.

  當我們都能從貿易中得到一些積極的東西時,經濟學家稱之為生產,因為我們的共同努力產生了一些額外的東西。例如,如果我們其中一個人有廚房,其中一個可以提供一些原料,另一個有食譜,一個可以做飯,你可以選擇一起烤蛋糕——或者餅干,或者派。結果是,現在我們有了一個餅,這比以前好多了。我們已經生產了,現在我們可以分享生產的成果。

  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!

  另一種方法叫做分配:當別人做了一個餡餅,我們只需要決定誰吃這個餅的哪一部分。這個餡餅已經做好了,沒有什么更好的做法可以讓我們用小餡餅做成大餡餅。假設我們沒有拿著同樣大小的餡餅走出去,那么我們其中一個可能會贏得更大的一塊,而另一個必須拿著更小的一塊出去。

  Game Theory 博弈理論

  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.

  如果一個游戲能帶來增長,那它就被稱為網絡積極游戲。玩家們的表現比他們剛進入的狀態還要好。

  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?

  與凈正的交替被稱為零和博弈,在這種博弈中,開始時的價值與結束時相同。誰受益了,誰輸了?

  Political Theory 政治理論

  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.

  資本主義[Gupta, 2014]:國家強制的法治為所有超越當前行業的人創造了機會。不誠實的陳述或缺乏誠信會引起投訴,但所有人都容易受到系統的傷害。

  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.

  無政府狀態:自愿的互動規則在游戲中沒有留下任何超越當前賭注的痕跡,從而使精明的交易員比沒有那么精明的交易員更有競爭力。所有人都容易受到買者自慎的影響。

  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.

  對于這位企業家來說,所有這些觀點最終都站在了另一邊——她希望站在左邊,這樣她就能對自己投資的安全性有一定的把握。特別是,她希望在災難發生時,她的損害賠償能夠得到關注,即使“你輸了”這種名義上結果是她所得到的全部。

  Taming the Black Swan

  馴服的黑天鵝

  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?

  對于交易者 Alice來說,當災難來臨時,企業家Bob因為信任會站在她這邊。在復雜的空間里建立一個有生產力的企業,從長遠來看,會讓人擔心她的資本會遭到襲擊——她能相信她的社區會在她需要幫助的時候出現嗎?

  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,信任是一種可取的財產。但是她在哪里找到的?信任是一個地址、服務還是宗教呢?企業家能像我買啤酒一樣在超市買到嗎?

  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:

版權信息
作者:譯:Lochaiching
來源:EOS技術愛好者

關于我們

聯系我們

作者進駐

手機版

Copyright © 2013 比特巴 www.qdwpjd.tw
始建于2013年,提供比特幣 區塊鏈及數字貨幣新聞、技術教程、測評、項目周報、人物等資訊
本頁面提供的是EOS教程資訊,EOS幣為區塊鏈奇才BM領導開發的類似操作系統的區塊鏈架構平臺,旨在實現分布式應用的性能擴展。
六和网站曾道人