【雙語】關(guān)于近期EOS社區(qū)凍結(jié)問題賬戶仲裁案暮胧，華語社區(qū)的疑問及擔(dān)憂收集及國外社區(qū)回復(fù)-20180625
英文原文地址：
https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/1500/about-the-recent-arbitration-here-are-some-pros-and-cons-from-chinese-communities/p1?new=1
前言：關(guān)于最近凍結(jié)27個賬戶的仲裁案件问麸，中國社區(qū)有不同的聲音严卖，尤其是那些準備積極參與全球治理的社區(qū)布轿。我們希望中國社區(qū)的觀點和問題能夠被海外聽到，也希望能夠聽到海外社區(qū)的聲音驮捍。
About the recent arbitration case in which 27 accounts are frozen, there are different voices among Chinese communities, especially among those who are preparing to actively join the global governance. We hope different opinions and questions in Chinese communities can be heard, and we would like to hear your opinions very much. We will be grateful to hear your thoughts of the following ideas. :)
作者PS：個人來說我認為凍結(jié)賬戶的決定是可以理解的东且，但是這只是我個人的角度，可能存在瑕疵珊泳。因此我把中文社區(qū)關(guān)于這個話題的正方和反方觀點都收集了起來。在翻譯過程中我會盡量不扭曲說話人的原意薯演。
PS: Personally I think the decision to freeze the accounts is quite understandable, but that is just my personal perspective and might be flawed. That is why I have gathered both the Cons and Pros on this issue. I have tried my best not to distort the original meaning when translating them into English.
Cons:
郭達峰：這幾天正在激烈討論的是這些賬號調(diào)查出是受害者的證據(jù)是什么秧了，ECAF目前并沒有提供。持幣者很多都很擔(dān)憂衡创。
Opinion1:
The evidence that can prove these accounts are compromised is not revealed to the public by the ECAF. This has given rise to serious concerns in Chinese communities.
藥思齊-仲裁候選人：如果有提供證據(jù)這個就很合理晶通，主要不知道目前ECAF不提供證據(jù)的原因，有無可能是考慮保護受害者的隱私一也？
Opinion2:
If the evidence is listed for anyone to check, the arbitration would be totally OK. But for now since we cannot see the evidence, it is quite understandable to have concerns. Could the ECAF provide the reason why evidence is not provided immediately? Is there a possibility that this is for protecting the privacy of victims?
趙余：大家要的應(yīng)該cryptographic evidence喉脖，比如對應(yīng)的 eth 簽名的 transaction。如果連 cryptographic evidence 都不提供就要加黑名單树叽，就太夸張了。至于 cryptographic evidence 讓受害者暴露信息须误，這是必要的代價仇轻，公開的證據(jù)必須要有。
Opinion3:
What the public need is cryptographic evidence, such as transaction with corresponding eth signature. It would be outrageous that you freeze an account without at least crytopraphic evidence. As for the possible compromise of victims’?privacy, it is a necessary cost. There must be open evidence.
Victor-仲裁候選人：ECAF應(yīng)該給出關(guān)于這些證據(jù) 如果這些受害者不愿意將其廣開 ECAF應(yīng)該出一份公告來講明這個事情 具體是什么理由將這些賬戶加入黑名單給社區(qū)一個解釋祭椰。
Opinion4:
ECAF is supposed to give public the evidence on this case. If the victims don’t want the information be spread, ECAF should at least give an announcement on this.
宋承根：封賬號這事的邏輯基礎(chǔ)是什么疲陕？我能證明我曾經(jīng)擁有這個私鑰（比如用eth賬號證明）？那請問如何證明eth賬號沒被盜蹄殃？以及如果我線下購買私鑰是否被允許？如果允許诅岩，那么我一樣會被賣家封賬號。這里面的基礎(chǔ)在于如何確認一個賬號的歸屬鸳谜，這點上ecaf是模糊的式廷。
Opinion5:
What is the logic behind this decision? How can I prove that my account has been compromised if I can prove I possess the private key of the account? Also, am I allowed to buy a private key offline? If yes, then there is a chance that my account could be frozen by the seller. The fundamental question is how to confirm the owner? ECAF seems to be vague on this question.
Pros:
張振-仲裁候選人：緊急措施本來就是緊急的，初步理由人家也給了呀蝗肪。待事情處理完了策严，事后判斷緊急仲裁令是否發(fā)出的適宜，再進行獎懲妻导，這就是正當(dāng)程序。如果事后發(fā)現(xiàn)措施不對术浪，甚至造成了損失寿酌，依據(jù)行政法或者相關(guān)條例進行賠償。我覺得現(xiàn)在的問題就是硕并，一些BP不信任現(xiàn)在的ECAF 法焰，甚至不承認他們的合法地位埃仪。但是你既然使用了EOS 的賬戶陕赃，就說明你已經(jīng)同意了承認了EOSConstitution。而constitution本身就已開始規(guī)定了仲裁有權(quán)力做這些事情么库。
Opinion1:
This is what emergency is for. ECAF has already given a preliminary explanation. When things are done, we can decide later on whether the arbitration is appropriate or not and then carry out further reward or punishment. This is a proper procedure. In my opinion, the problem is that some BPs don’t trust the existing ECAF. But since you are using EOS account, that means you have already agreed to the constitution, which says that arbitrators have the right to do what has been done.
包漢鳴-仲裁候選人：一個是大部分人認同的規(guī)則，需不需要犧牲掉那小部分的人葡缰？如果犧牲掉小部分人能夠使得規(guī)則能夠執(zhí)行允睹，那這會不會導(dǎo)致之后出現(xiàn)多數(shù)人的暴力？但一直考慮小部分人的意見胁澳，那這個規(guī)則什么時候才能執(zhí)行米者？
Opinion2:
If we go where the majority go at the cost of sacrificing the interest of the minority, wouldn’t this lead to a violence of the many? On the other hand, if we keep considering the opinions of the few, when on earth can anything be done?
國外社區(qū)熱心網(wǎng)友Samupaha回復(fù)：
感謝你寫下這些！我不是ECAF成員蔓搞，但我會嘗試給些回答。首先我們要理解所謂仲裁即是雙方或多方之間的爭議解決喂分。例如Alice和Bob關(guān)于一些代筆到底該歸誰產(chǎn)生了分歧，他們同意重裁員Clark來解決這個爭議蒲祈，所以通常來講公眾是沒有必要知道這個爭議的內(nèi)容的。如果Alice和Bob自愿同意Clark作為案子的仲裁員扬卷，他們就會尊重Clark做出的仲裁，所以整個過程其實并不需要公眾的參與酸钦。
Thanks for writing this! I'm not a member of ECAF, but I'll try to give some answers.
It's important to understand that arbitration is dispute resolution between two or more parties. For example, A and B have a disagreement which one of them owns certain tokens. They agree that arbitrator C should resolve this dispute. So usually there is no need for the public to know what the dispute was all about. If A and B voluntarily agree that C is the arbitrator for their case, they will respect the solution presented by C, so they can do it without the public being involved in the case in any way.
可能有些案例中，爭議的某一方是未知的蚕断。例如目前的案子因谎，我不認為嫌疑黑客會聯(lián)系ECAF，且黑客手里有私鑰财岔，所以他完全可以講一個自己版本的故事匠璧，并嘗試證明那些賬戶其實沒有被黑夷恍，反而是那些提出仲裁申請的人在嘗試盜取賬戶。
There can be cases when some party of a dispute is unknown. For example this current case. I don't think that the suspected hacker has contacted ECAF. He has the private keys for those accounts, so he has a right to tell his side of the story. He can try to prove that accounts were not hacked and people who opened the cases are trying to steal his accounts.
區(qū)塊鏈的可溯源性讓人們更容易識別作惡者酿雪。這條也適用于仲裁員侄刽。如果他們做出了惡意裁決州丹，受害者可以去找到另一個仲裁員開啟一個新案子。新仲裁員可以檢查這個案子吓揪，如果存在失誤，他可以做出和上一位仲裁員相反的裁決柠辞。切記我們的系統(tǒng)不是為了懲罰犯錯的人叭首，而是為了找到一個把事情糾正的方法讥裤。如果仲裁員犯錯了，我們后續(xù)是可以糾正的己英。
Everything will be recorded in the blockchain which makes it easier to see if somebody did something bad. This applies to arbitrators, too. If they make a bad decision, the victim can go to another arbitrator and open a new case. The new arbitrator can look at the case, and if there is misconduct, he can make a ruling against the earlier arbitrator. It should be remembered that our system is not about punishing people who do wrong, but finding a way to make things right. If an arbitrator does something wrong, we have the possibility to make it right again afterwards.
雖然通常來說公眾并不需要參與仲裁案件，但是在這個案例中公眾的參與是可以理解的荣瑟。這些都是主網(wǎng)啟動時就有的創(chuàng)世賬戶摩泪，這些賬戶已經(jīng)是整個社區(qū)的一部分，所以在這個案例中公眾還是最好能夠知道這些賬戶是否被黑客控制嚷掠。所以個人來講荞驴，我同意仲裁員應(yīng)該提供更多信息，例如以太賬戶所有權(quán)的cryptographic evidence（加密證據(jù)）霹娄。另外一個公眾參與到這個案例中的原因是鲫骗，爭議的其中一方是未知的。如果有相關(guān)人不回應(yīng)仲裁員手頭的案子枕磁，這可能說明他不知道這事坦胶，所以這個時候讓公眾參與發(fā)聲，以確保不會有人因為不知情而丟失財產(chǎn)峭咒，這是好事情凑队。搞出些動靜有利于幫助未知爭議方意識到自己和案子有關(guān)幔翰。
While usually the public doesn't need to be involved in an arbitration case, because it's between private parties, in this case public involvement is somewhat understandable. This is about genesis accounts which were there when the blockchain was launched. These accounts become part of our community, so in this case it might be preferable that the public knows whether or not those accounts might be controlled by scammers. So I personally agree that arbitrators should give more information, such as cryptographic evidence of Ethereum account ownership.
Another reason for the public to become involved in this case is the fact that one party of the dispute is unknown. If somebody doesn't respond to a case handled by an arbitrator, it might mean that he is not aware of it. That's why it's good that public will make some noise to ensure nobody's property rights are violated just because they didn't know their account is involved in a case. Making some noise will help unknown parties to become aware that there are cases open where they might be part of.
確實ECAF的溝通做的還不夠好，但是這個系統(tǒng)還每場年輕叫惊，很多流程設(shè)計還不夠精密霍狰。這個是個動態(tài)過程抡草，所以所有的反饋都是歡迎的康震。他們也在盡最大努力去成為一個可信的組織宾濒。公眾幫助ECAF的最佳方式是提供建設(shè)性批評，告訴他們?nèi)绾尾拍茏龅酶瞄俪馈５枰蠹矣涀∵@是需要花時間的，還有很多事情要做鹦付。
It's true that communication by ECAF hasn't been good. but this is still very young system and not all procedures are carefully designed. This is work in progress, so all feedback is welcomed. They are trying to do their best to become trustworthy organization. Best way for the public to help ECAF is to give constructive criticism on what they could do better. But remember, it will take some time because there is still a lot of things to do.
中文社區(qū)觀點：封賬號這事的邏輯基礎(chǔ)是什么？我能證明我曾經(jīng)擁有這個私鑰（比如用eth賬號證明）郎嫁？那請問如何證明eth賬號沒被盜？以及如果我線下購買私鑰是否被允許尚辑？如果允許盔腔，那么我一樣會被賣家封賬號弛随。這里面的基礎(chǔ)在于如何確認一個賬號的歸屬，這點上ecaf是模糊的舀透。
What is the logic behind this decision? How can I prove that my account has been compromised if I can prove I possess the private key of the account? Also, am I allowed to buy a private key offline? If yes, then there is a chance that my account could be frozen by the seller. The fundamental question is how to confirm the owner? ECAF seems to be vague on this question.
回復(fù)：在大部分情況下這個都不容易愕够，就像在現(xiàn)實世界中，不可能阻止所有的犯罪坠狡，抓住所有的罪犯遂跟。仲裁者對此是心知肚明的婴渡，所以會要求所有的仲裁申請都提供明確證據(jù)缩搅。如果沒有明確證據(jù)触幼，ECAF是無能為力的。
In many cases this won't be easy thing to do. Just like in the real world, all crimes can't be stopped and all criminals can't be caught. Arbitrators know this and will ask for strong evidence for all claims. If there is no strong evidence, ECAF can't do anything about it.
如果你線下購買賬戶堂鲤，你可以通過很多方式降低潛在風(fēng)險瘟栖。你可以要求賣家給區(qū)塊鏈發(fā)送信息谅阿，例如“今天這個賬戶被賣給誰誰誰”签餐。EOS是基于自愿合約的（voluntary contract，如果翻譯有誤還請斧正）氯檐，所以你應(yīng)該確保能夠證明有這么個合約。如果是純線下的糯崎，你可以用老式的紙質(zhì)合約河泳。賬戶越容易受到威脅，越應(yīng)該收集足夠的證據(jù)證明合約的有效樟插。賣家可以用其他的可信方式表明合約是自愿并且有共識的竿刁，例如用基于密鑰的賬戶對其簽名，又或者雙方握手合影然后把照片放到 鏈上鸵熟。有很多方式證明一個合約负甸，我覺得我們以后會看到關(guān)于“合約證明”的創(chuàng)新痹届，因為這個對EOS生態(tài)來說太核心了打月。
If you buy an account offline, you can mitigate potential problems in many ways. You can ask the seller to write a message to the blockchain, for example, "today this account is sold to person X". EOS is based on voluntary contracts, so you should make sure you can prove that there is a contract. If it's offline, you can make a old style paper contract. The more valuable the account is, the more proof there should be for the contract. Seller could use other trustworthy ways to indicate that the contract was voluntary and consensual, such as using his Keybase account to sign it. Or you could shake hands and take photograph and put it in the blockchain.
There are a lot of ways to prove a contract, I think we will see new innovations for "proof of contract" because it's so essential feature of EOS ecosystem.
