【翻译|Ian】受治理的区块链（中）
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%20draft，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）！
本文为《下篇》，《上篇》可点击此处查看。
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 a decision, it wasn't enough to follow through to implementation. 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 called win-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 called win-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 it production, 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 can share the 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 called allocation: 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 a net-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 the zero-sum game in 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 to caveat 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 of trust. 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:
◦ Multiple trades, with no expectation of when they might end,
◦ shared profit from this round, and expectations of future shared profits, and
◦ punishments outside the game if we cheat.
考虑一下你和我之间的信任，有助于建立一个框架[Grigg, 2016]。博弈论告诉我们，要建立起巨大的信任，我们需要:
◦多个交易，不确定是什么时候结束时,
◦从这一轮共享的利润，预期未来的利润共享,
◦以及如果我们作弊的话惩罚内容是什么
I won’t trust you much after one beer, one meeting, one argument; I am much more likely to trust you after 100 beers, 100 meetings, 100 debates, by which time we’ll both know I’m untrustworthy about counting the beers.
在喝一杯啤酒，开一次会，吵一架之前，我不会相信你；在喝了100杯啤酒，开了100次会，进行了100场辩论之后，我更有可能相信你，到那时我们都知道，我在数多少杯啤酒的时候是靠不住的。
Each of those 100 events requires a decision, and each adds some information for the next decision. This risk analysis is a cycle: analyse, decide, take on the risk, and enjoy the reward (or not!). We both need to remember the outcomes for the next time, and tag that information with the identity of our partner.
这100个事件中的每一个都需要决策，每个都为下一个决策添加了一些信息。这种风险分析是一个循环：分析、决定、承担风险、享受回报(或者不享受)。我们都需要记住下一次的结果，并把这些信息和我们伙伴的身份联系起来。
Then, trust comes at a high cost, and by its nature, it is too expensive for one trade.
所以信任是要付出很高的代价的，从本质上来讲，和一项交易相比来说，太过昂贵了。
If you require trust with me as your counterparty, the only way to make this workable is if we establish a framework of repeated trades. That is, we spread the cost of trust that fixes the one big snafu over many good trades that each have a little margin devoted to building trust. The building of trust into relationship is made of many small bricks: Introductions, information exchanges, trial transactions, user support, minor teething problems, finding those lost transactions. We hope that enough trust is built in time to capture and tame the black swan when it flies in.
如果作为你的交易对手，你需要信任我，唯一可行的办法是我们建立一个重复交易的框架。也就是说，我们分散了信任成本，在许多好的交易中解决了一个大问题，每个交易都有一点点的利润是用于建立信任的。建立信任关系是由许多小块砖组成的：介绍、信息交换、试用交易、用户支持、小的初期问题、寻找那些丢失的交易。我们希望能够及时建立起足够的信任，在黑天鹅飞来的时候能够抓住并驯服它。
The Blockchain for Tomorrow
未来的Blockchain
Spot the flaw: trust is expensive. We need to 'amortise' or share the cost of all of these small steps. And for that, we need to rely on repeated business, and the expectation of repeated business.
发现缺陷：信任是昂贵的。我们需要“摊销”或分担所有这些小步骤的成本。为此，我们需要依赖重复经营，以及重复经营的预期。
Perversely, trust requires repeated trade and repeated trade requires trust - you are not going to engage in the process of building trust over multiple rounds unless you trust me to at least buy the next round.
有悖常理的是，信任需要重复交易，重复交易需要信任——除非你相信我至少会在下一次买卖，否则你不会参与多轮建立信任的过程。
Which is to say, right now, we may be cooperating on today's trade, but we are expecting every future trade we might also be involved in. We therefore require a blockchain that is cooperative, for all trades, all persons and all tomorrows, rather than adversarial, for the one big win today.
也就是说，现在，我们可能在今天的贸易上进行合作，但我们期待着未来的每一笔贸易，我们也可能参与其中。因此，我们需要一个对所有行业、所有人、所有明天都合作的区块链，而不是对抗性必须有一方赢家一方是输家的区块链，以换取今天的大胜利。
Blockchains have been lauded for their history, their immutable past, their lock on that which has happened, indeed their trustlessness. But this is to look backwards, to history, to archeology, to dead data. People who trade look forward because all trust builds towards a better future.
区块链因其历史、不可改变的过去、对已经发生的事情的锁定、甚至是对他们的不信任而受到称赞。但这是为了回顾历史、考古学、死亡数据。贸易的人期待未来，因为所有的信任都建立在更美好的未来上。
We build the blockchain of the future, in which all our tomorrows are anticipated, in which the long term is the term.
我们构建未来的区块链在其中，我们所有明天的期待在其中，这个期限是长期。
Without the future, trust cannot be.
没有未来，就没有信任。
The Man and her Machine
男人和她的机器
“[Global Thermonuclear War is] A strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?”
Wargames 1983
“全球热核战争是一种奇怪的游戏。
唯一的赢家之举就是不去参与。
来一盘好棋怎么样?”
Wargames 1983
We can see something of the answer in the divide between humans and machines. Only humans can engage in net-positive trade, because only humans can value the results. Machines are incapable of production because they cannot value; the best they can do is automate the allocation of value that already exists, and assist in production for their owners.
在人类和机器之间的鸿沟上，我们可以看到一些答案。只有人类才能参与正净值交易，因为只有人类才能珍惜结果。机器不能生产，因为它们不能估价；他们能做的最好的事情是自动分配已经存在的价值，并帮助他们的所有者进行生产。
Value belongs to humans: Pie and cookies are enjoyed only by humans. The appreciation of the results can only be enjoyed by the humans, because humans alone can make the subjective and emotional decision as to what is to be enjoyed. We can employ and own machines to assist in production, in the creation of positive value, but production can only occur because we value it so, because we ascribe a positive value to the results as against the inputs.
价值属于人类：馅饼和饼干只有人类才能享用。只有人类能对结果进行欣赏，因为只有人类才能做出主观和情感上的决定。我们可以使用并拥有机器来帮助生产，帮助创造正向的价值，正因为我们如此重视生产，所以它必然会发生，因为我们将结果与投入相比形成正向的价值。
Machines then are limited to an allocative approach, win-lose, to fight, to extract, to play until death, whereas us humans have choice - we may play at win-lose, or we may also cooperate, or even switch our strategies because we don’t feel good about the other person. We may not play at all.
机器被限制在一种分配的方法，赢输、战斗、提取、进行到死，而我们人类有选择——我们可能会在赢方输方中竞争，或者我们也有可能合作，甚至改变我们的策略，因为一旦我们对别人感觉不好，就可能根本不会开始玩。
Yuval Noah Harari says that what makes humans special is our ability to create fictions or beliefs around which we can choose to cooperate at scale[Harari, 2015] . But none of this works if there is no choice, no risk, and damningly, no reward that can be enjoyed. We can build an AI or robot to engage in (say) high-frequency trading, splice a gene, or predict dating partners. But we cannot build an AI to enjoy early retirement off of a lifetime in the markets, to sip a margarita in bliss, to watch a sunset with a partner or share joy in bringing up a child.
Yuval Noah Harari说，人类之所以与众不同，是因为我们有能力创造虚构或信仰，并据此选择大规模合作[Harari，2015]。但如果没有选择，没有风险，更糟糕的是没有回报，这些都不起作用。我们可以建立一个人工智能或机器人来参与(比如)高频交易、拼接基因或预测约会对象。但我们无法构建一个人工智能，让我们在市场上享受早早退休的时光，在极乐中啜饮一杯玛格丽塔鸡尾酒，与伴侣一起观看日落，或在抚养孩子的过程中分享快乐。
Machines are therefore locked into an allocative game, and absent sophisticated and brittle AI techniques, they find themselves best able to engage in win-lose, in the zero-sum game. Two machines playing any game or protocol can only move existing value back and forth, they cannot create value.
因此，机器被锁在一个分配博弈中，没有复杂而脆弱的人工智能技术，它们发现自己最能在零和博弈中参与赢方输方的角色。两个机器玩任何游戏或协议只能来回移动现有的价值，他们不能创造价值。
This is reflected in the relative strength of the blockchain as an allocative method, below the line, and the relative weakness that the users and their smart contracts have found themselves in, above the line. In principle, this is sane and rational - before, we said that we should automate the simple, as much of the simple as we can. That which is complex, we leave above the line, for the humans. Therefore, correctly, blockchain places the choice above the line with humanity - win-win or win-lose, your choice, your smart contract, your enjoyment.
这反映在区块链作为一种配置方法在线下的相对优势，在线上之上用户和他们的智能合约所发现的相对弱点。原则上讲，这是理智和理性的——之前我们说过，我们应该尽可能多地自动化简单的东西。复杂的东西把它分给给人类。因此，正确地说，区块链将选择置于人性之上——双赢或输赢，你的选择，你的智能合约，你的享受。
The Trap that UnPermissioning Created for Itself
为自己创造了未受允许的陷阱
“How much value is stored in smart contracts that actually do anything interesting?”
Vitalik Buterin, tweet 13 Dec 2017
“有多少价值被存储在智能合约中，而这些合同实际上可以做一些有趣的事情?”
Vitalik Buterin, 2017年12月13日的推特
The unpermissioned blockchain spends most or all of its strength below the line. Whether that user proposition be a payment or a series of simple “script” instructions, a virtual machine or a genetic algorithm trained to respond to questions of import [Sgantzos 2017], it is still automated, and it is left to the user to turn that base tool into valuable trade.
未受允许的区块链将其大部分或全部精力消耗在线下。无论用户主张是支付还是一系列简单的“脚本”指令、虚拟机还是训练有素的用于回答附加问题的演变算法（genetic algorithm）(Sgantzos 2017)，它仍然是自动的，用户可以把基本工具变成有价值的交易。
Satoshi’s design is justifiably seen as a breakthrough. The blockchain can complete simple trades automatically, at the allocative level of the zero-sum game; it defers complex trades of a more win-win, productive form to the complex layer, what might also be called smart contract space. The complexity of trade, as epitomised by the technical promise of smart contracts, is exciting to many.
Satoshi的设计被认为是一个突破。区块链可以在零和博弈的配置水平上自动完成简单交易;它将更为双赢、更高效的复杂交易转移到复杂的层面，也就是所谓的“智能合约空间”。以智能合约的技术承诺为代表的贸易的复杂性，令许多人兴奋不已。
Yet, it is somewhat clear that this latter part did not emerge, or was excruciatingly slow to do so. Why is this?
然而，很明显的是，后半部分并没有出现，或者是极其缓慢的。这是为什么呢?
It may be that Satoshi's design so successfully solved the automation of payment and other simple tasks that the community put the win-lose on a taller pedestal than otherwise deserved. The solution was good at bringing together otherwise adversarial parties to trade, but there is no necessary conclusion that, just because the blockchain can solve an adversarial allocative trade in simple space, that complex space should likewise be adversarial, allocative, win-lose or zero-sum, either individually or in combination.
Satoshi的设计非常成功地解决了支付和其他简单任务的自动化问题，社区把赢方放在了更高的基础上。这个解决方案很擅长将原本对立的各方汇聚到一起进行贸易，但没有必要得出这样的结论：仅仅因为区块链可以在简单的空间中解决对抗性的分配贸易，那么复杂的空间同样应该是对抗性的、分配性的、赢方输方或零和的，无论是单独的还是组合的。
Above, indeed we present the entrepreneur as one potential user who does not want that. And has walked away in frustration. It is not just the absence of attention to this need, nor the weakness of tooling & solutions, nor the blasé attitude to end-user security. Rather, blockchain today has gone far further in its idolatry - the community champions the adversarial, the allocative, win-lose, zero-sum as the space in which to trade. It is as if the blockchainers say, “we've discovered trustlessness is the answer, and now trust is banned!”
在上面，我们不希望把企业家作为一个潜在的用户，企业家沮丧地离开了。这不仅是因为没有注意到这种需求，不是因为工具和解决方案的不足，也不是因为对终端用户安全性的态度过于冷淡。相反，区块链如今在其偶像崇拜上走得更远——社区倡导对抗、分配、赢输、零和的交易空间。就好像是封锁者说:“我们已经发现，毫无信任就是答案，目前的情况就是信任被禁止了!”
And this is the trap that the UnPermissioned blockchain community has fallen into - the outcome of championing an allocative game is the promotion of an incompatible environment for constructive trade.
这就是未受认可的区块链社区陷入的陷阱——倡导分配博弈的结果是促进建设性贸易的不相容环境。
The obsession with the allocative approach has consequences. While a trader is concentrating on today’s big win, she is not concentrating on production. If she does win big, then her customer will lose big - and may not be there tomorrow. If on the other hand she loses big, she may depart the scene, with a bitter taste, big losses and no good word to say about blockchain.
执迷于分配方法是需要承担后果的。当一个交易者沉迷于今天的胜利时，她并没有专注于生产。如果她真的是赢的那方了，那么她的客户就会是大输家——而且明天可能不会出现在交易方的角色中。另一方面，如果她损失惨重，就可能会带着酸苦的和对说区块链不好的话离开。
Multiply the individual poverty across the community, into debates, chatrooms, decisions, divorces and other bankruptcies - the obsession presents a high barrier. It will over time act as a filter: those people who want to produce, have the patience to build, those who see the value in the long term, the trust will be excluded. Either by frightening them away, by chasing them away, or by win-losing away their value.
把整个社会的个人贫困问题放大到辩论、聊天室、决策、离婚和其他破产问题上，这种偏执就会构成了一个巨大的障碍。它会随着时间的推移而成为一个过滤器：那些想要生产的人，有耐心去建立，那些看到长期价值的人，信任将不是需要考虑的范围，他们会坚信地去做事情而不需要信任。所以要么把他们吓跑，要么把他们赶走，要么赢得失去他们的价值。
While, the easy winners are rewarded and encouraged to stay for another easy kill. If the environment promotes zero-sum trading then zero-sum traders are what will make up the community. If we can label that as a community.
然而，容易获胜的人会得到奖励，并被鼓励留下来再做一次简单的杀戮。如果环境促进零和交易，那么零和交易者将会构成整个社区。如果我们把它定义为一个社区。
The War on Trust
信任战争
In Satoshi's view, technology can effectively route around the human "design flaw" in the present money system. Satoshi’s Bitcoin, therefore, is built to be incorruptible by human operators. Bitcoin champions a form of techno-absolutism that insists on properly designed technology as the solution to any social problem. This spirit of techno-absolutism **attracts like-minded people who are fascinated by the mistaken notion that technology can fully "replace" politics or human decision making. **Conjoin Bitcoin's techno-absolutism with an anarchic rejection of institutional authority and a libertarian commitment to property and privacy, and an unique social ideology emerges. It’s an ideology that is espoused by Bitcoin’s technology (i.e., its technology thesis) **and it also permeates the community. **
[Panchèvre, 2015 (my emphasis)]
在Satoshi看来，技术可以有效地绕过现行货币体系中的人类“设计缺陷”。因此，Satoshi的比特币是由人类操作者设计的，不会被腐蚀。比特币是一种科技绝对主义的形式，它坚持把正确设计的技术作为解决任何社会问题的方法。这种技术绝对主义的精神**吸引了志同道合的人，他们被一种错误的观念所吸引，即技术可以完全“取代”政治或人类决策**。将比特币技术的绝对主义与对制度权威的无法无天的拒绝，以及对财产和隐私的自由主义承诺结合在一起，一种独特的社会意识形态应运而生。这是比特币技术所支持的一种意识形态。**它也渗透到整个社会**。
[Panchèvre 2015(我记的重点)]
It gets worse. The win-lose approach to trade (think: real estate, used car selling and financial products) has now moved to center stage. This brings in people talented at the hard sell, the one off, the deceptive offering, the kill.
它变得更糟。这种“赢方输方”的交易方式(想想：房地产、二手车销售和金融产品)现在已经进入了中心舞台。这就带来了擅长硬推销的人才，充斥着某人离开、欺骗性的奉献和杀戮。
But, as the wrong type of trader permeates a community that also champions anonymity and an absence of standards or ethics, the line between aggressive trading and crime dissolves. Anything goes; it becomes rational to do what you can - as long as you don't get caught.
但是，随着错误类型的交易员渗透到一个提倡匿名和缺乏标准或道德的社区，激进交易和犯罪之间的界线就消失了。任何事情都可能发生；只要你不被抓住，做你能做的事情就会变得理性。
By way of rhetorical examples:
⇒ For me to make money on an altCoin pump, you must lose money by for example buying in with your life savings. Hopefully, for me, at the top, as I dump.
⇒ In the casinos, the house always wins.
⇒ If my ICO can convince the herd to move, I collect money, the herd pays. Delivery is optional, so the obvious happens - most ICOs are well dressed scams.
⇒ If I've bought in early on the ICO, and my take shrinks with each additional contributor, why not DDOS the chain so additional contributions can't get in?
通过修辞上的例子:
⇒altCoin为我赚钱，你必须赔钱，例如用你一生的积蓄来买入。希望我能在价格顶部的时候出货。
⇒在赌场，赢家总是庄家。
⇒如果我的ICO能说服一群人向我付费。给不给钱是可以选择的，所以显而易见的是——大多数ICO都是精心打扮的骗局。
⇒如果我在早期投了ICO，我的份额随着不断增加的投资者而减少，那为什么不DDOS这条链然后让投资者不增加而保持我开始的大份额呢？
ToxiChain
ToxiChain
If you look around the blockchain space and can't tell who's getting scammed, it's probably you.
Jameson Lopp, tweet 23rd September 2016
如果你环顾一下区块链空间，不知道谁被骗了，很可能那个被骗的人就是你。
Jameson Lopp, 2016年9月23日发推
The earliest report of a possible crime is Jeff Garzik's report of an overflow bug being exploited in August of 2010 - some 184 billion were minted through abusing the limit of an integer at 2^64 size [Garzik, 2010] . Many followed. Indeed, many of the above list of black swans were criminally motivated. Which takes us from the early innocent days to the present brutal reality:
最早可能犯罪的是Jeff Garzik报告中溢出被利用的2010年8月的漏洞——通过滥用限制大小的整数2 ^ 64[Garzik,2010] 铸造了另外的1840亿。许多相关的事件在后面也连续发生。事实上，上面列出的许多“黑天鹅”都是出于犯罪动机。它把我们从早期的天真带到现实的残酷中:
Unpermissioned Blockchain is not only win-lose, it is encouraging of crime.
不被允许的区块链不仅是赢方输方，而且是鼓励犯罪的。
Attracting the sorts of people who can work effectively with win-lose and scaring away the rest is a self-fulfilling destiny in toxicity - BTFD, FOMO, and YOLO are rallying cries, anything goes becomes the climate, and crime follows close behind [Güring&Grigg, 2011]. We start with those who understand the haggle, the trade, the pop, the win in the short term. And we invite those who relish the easy money, the pump & dump, taking money from new players, the big kill. Followed by the crims.
吸引那些能够有效地利用赢输和吓跑剩下的人是在毒性方面自我实现的宿命——BTFD、FOMO和YOLO都在呼喊，一切都成了气候，犯罪就会紧随其后[Guring&Grigg, 2011]。我们从那些懂得讨价还价、交易、流行、在短期内取胜的人开始，邀请那些喜欢来钱快的人，那些从新玩家那里拿钱的吸血鬼和找下家的人，进行韭菜大收割。其次是有罪的。
In the final outcome, the unpermissioned blockchain fails to support business. Not because unpermissioning is a bad idea, but because an environment of zero-sum games promotes zero-sum behaviour, and squeezes out net-positive opportunities of productive trade. In a word, unpermissioned blockchain is toxic.
在最终结果中，未被许可的区块链无法支持业务。不是因为不允许贸易是一个坏主意，而是因为零和博弈的环境促进了零和行为，挤压了生产性贸易的正向机会。总之，未经许可的区块链是有毒的。
Of Casinos and Kitties
赌场和小猫
If your goal is money, you'll develop a destructive personality, as the world appears zero-sum, your desire is for others to do things for you. If your goal is liberty, you'll develop a constructive personality, since your world is your own creation.
Mark Wilcox, tweet 13 April 2018
如果你的目标是金钱，你就会发展出一种破坏性的人格，因为这个世界看起来是零和的，你的愿望是让别人为你做事。如果你的目标是自由，你就会发展出一种建设性的人格，因为你的世界是你自己创造的。
Mark Wilcox，2018年4月13日
We can test the win-lose hypothesis: today's blockchains are where we automate payments, gaming, ICOs and exchange of crypto. The popular successful applications on Bitcoin and Ethereum are almost exclusively zero-sum games:
"if you look at State of the Dapps, the large majority of working applications are either for betting, gaming, or facilitating the movement of ether."
BlockMason, tweet 2017
我们可以检验赢方输方的假设：今天的区块链是我们自动支付、游戏、ICO和密码交换的地方。在比特币和以太坊上成功的应用几乎都是零和游戏:
“如果你看看Dapps的状态，你会发现绝大多数的工作应用要么是用于赌博、游戏，要么是促进ether运动。”
BlockMason，2017发推
This is the world of day traders, banks, pumpers & dumpers, private dealing, financial engineers, cartels and so forth: the house always wins, cartels are held together by self-interest, currencies such as BTC can only allocate and any 'gains' are because new buyers cash out the old buyers. There is consensus in transactions, but as we know from game theory, any faith you derive from these transactions is not long-lasting.
这是一个由短线交易员、银行、“垃圾处理商”、私人交易、金融工程师、卡特尔（译者注：即垄断利益集团）等组成的世界：庄家永远是赢家，卡特尔们被自身利益维系在一起，BTC等货币只能分配，任何“收益”都是因为新买家从老买家手中买入才得以套现。交易是有共识的，但我们从博弈论中知道，你从这些交易中获得的任何信念都不是持久的。
What are the net-positive businesses? To our knowledge, there are only two distributed applications in the entirety of crypto space that are productive rather than allocative:
☆ Steemit which is a blog posting site in which readers reward blog posters for good writings, and
☆ CryptoKitties, being a new game that 'produces' a cat from 2 others. The combination is a produced digital asset, however trivial, and the entertainment value of the process suggests that this is a productive venture, albeit controversially so.
If anything, CryptoKitties as a productive application highlights how far we haven't come - we've created a $500 billion industry in which the major crimes outnumber the major productive businesses.
什么是积极的网络商业？据我们所知，整个密码空间中只有两个分布式应用是有效的，而不是分配式的:
☆Steemit这是一个读者奖励好的输出作品的博客网站
☆CryptoKitties，一个被2人“生产”一只猫的游戏。这种结合是一种生产出来的数字资产，无论它多么微不足道，而这一过程的娱乐价值表明，这是一项富有成效的冒险，尽管存在争议。
如果说有什么不同的话，密码学作为一种富有成效的应用程序，突显出我们才刚刚开始——我们已经创建了一个价值5000亿美元的行业，其中主要犯罪行为的数量超过了主要生产性企业。
Protecting the Environment
保护环境
Who shut down BTC-e?
谁关闭BTC-e?
It wasn't the enterprising efforts of the cryptocurrency community or its verbose opinion-makers on social media or the "new 1%." It was several government law enforcement agencies that coordinated across multiple jurisdictions on limited budgets.6 Yet, like Silk Road, some people in the cryptocurrency community likely knew the operators of the BTC-e and willingly turned a blind eye to serious misconduct which, for so long as it continues, represents a black mark to the entire industry.
[Swanson, 2017]
这不是加密货币社区的冒险努力，也不是社交媒体上冗长的舆论制造者，也不是那个“新的1%”。几个政府执法机构在多个司法管辖区就有限的预算进行协调。然而，就像丝绸之路一样，加密货币界的一些人可能知道BTC-e的运营商，并且愿意对严重的不当行为睁一只眼闭一只眼，只要这种行为持续下去，就代表着整个行业的一个污点。
[Swanson,2017]
If the opportunity of unpermissioned blockchain in blockchain is winning or losing, then the outcome is destruction or denial. It’s hard for the small enterprise to make profits in a toxic environment. Encouraging the talents of war and appropriation has the effect of discouraging the talents of peace and trade. Which is fine, if we’re actually fighting a war, but what if we’re not? Such an environment does not welcome those who have the patience to build a business, those who see the value in trust.
如果区块链中未被许可的区块链的机会是赢或输，那么结果就是毁灭或否认。在有毒的环境下，小公司很难盈利。鼓励战争和挪用人才，会对和平与贸易的人才产生不利的影响。如果我们真的在打仗这很好，但如果我们没有呢？这样的环境并不欢迎那些有耐心建立企业的人，那些看到信任的价值的人。
Unpermissioned blockchains promote the zero-sum game therefore discourage business with aggressive win-lose, when business is by its nature built on the alternate, win-win. This is the fundamental reason why there have been few stable businesses in blockchain outside the zero-sum game - no rational business person will invest their capital in a toxic environment full of arguments & insults, thefts & hacks, risks of forks and the like.
不受约束的区块链促进了零和游戏，因此，当企业的本质是建立在互补性、双赢的基础上的时候，就会阻碍商业的发展。这就是为什么区块链在零和博弈之外几乎没有稳定的业务的根本原因——没有理性的商人会将他们的资本投资于充斥着争论和羞辱、偷窃和黑客行为、分叉风险之类的有毒环境。
In small business, we look for the trade that is a positive sum, because we want our customer to come back. We both win a little each time, and therefore, a win-win overall. We cannot grow as a society unless we all make profits together.
在小企业中，我们寻找的交易是积极的，因为我们希望回头客多一点。其实这样每次都赢一点，因此，总的来说是双赢的。我们不可能作为一个社会集体来成长，除非我们都能共同获利。
Therefore we must, in order to serve people and business, construct a blockchain that is encouraging to win-win, to net-positive trades. And while not discouraging of the allocative trade, which granted is an essential part of trade because of its simplicity, we do want to discourage the win-lose trader from taking center stage and thereby displacing the win-win trader.
因此，为了服务大家和企业，我们必须构建一个鼓励双赢的区块链。尽管我们不反对由于交易的简单性而被批准为交易的重要组成部分的配置性交易，但我们确实希望避免必须有赢方输方的交易占据主导地位，从而取代双赢的形式。
We want to attract and incentivise the right sort of people, these that want to do good trade and make shareable profit; we want to discourage and filter out the wrong sort people, those that want to take the crumbs off the table, those that beggar their neighbour, and those that steal.
我们想要吸引和激励合适的人，这些人想要做良好的交易并获得可分享的利润；我们想要阻止和过滤那些错误的人，那些想从桌子上把面包屑拿下来的人，那些以邻人为食的人，还有那些偷东西的人。
A blockchain for business is one that promotes win-win, productive trades over win-lose, allocative trades.
商业的区块链是一种促进双赢的、富有成效的交易，而不是赢的、分配的交易。
It is to that more refined goal we turn in the next section.
在下一节中，我们将讨论更精确的目标。
本文图片来源于网络
了解更多关于EOShenzhen：
关于我们更多联系：
Website：https://eoshenzhen.io
Steem：https://steemit.com/@eoshenzhen
Busy：https://busy.org/@eoshenzhen
Telegram：https://t.me/eoshenzhen
Twitter：https://twitter.com/eostechlover
简书：EOS技术爱好者
新浪微博：EOSTechLover
EOShenzhen的投票账号：eoshenzhenio