【Thomas】我设计EOS.IO宪法草案0.1版本的原则
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，译者Lochaiching。转载必须保留以上声明。仅授权原文转载。
本文原文内容链接为https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/424/design-principles-of-my-v0-1-draft-eos-io-constitution，发帖人Thomas Cox，由本号“EOS技术爱好者”翻译。
以下为帖子全文及回帖内容：
Design Principles of my v0.1 Draft EOS.IO Constitution
我设计EOS.IO宪法草案0.1版本的原则
thomasbcox
March 20 edited March 22 in EOS Governance, Economics, & Philosophy
这是Thomas Cox3月22日在EOS治理经济和机制哲学板块中发出的帖子
These are the standards, goals and principles behind the draft Articles I'll be posting. Agreement is not required. They're here so the reader can see why I made certain design choices in the drafting. If you have different standards, goals, or principles, please state yours explicitly. That makes it clearer why we may disagree on an article.
For example, if you disagree with the goal of "negative rights" then you would write very different articles. Please be encouraged to share both your alternative articles, AND your disagreement with the specific goal (e.g. "negative rights" or whatever) that underlie the differences.
1.Negative Rights
2.Brevity
3.English Only
4.Nesting Levels
5.Life, Liberty and Property
6.Synergy with Social Norms
本文是我将要发布条款草案的标准、目标和原则。达成一致的协议不是必须的。读者可以在本文中看到我在起草过程中为什么选择这样的设计。如果你有不同的标准、目标或原则，请明确说明。这让我们更清楚为什么在一篇文章上允许不同意的声音出现。
例如，如果你不同意“消极权利”（即出生即拥有的权利，与“积极权利”相对应）的目标，那么你就会写与此观点不同意见的文章。鼓励你分享你不同意见的文章，以及你对具体目标基础差异的不同意见（“消极的权利”或其他）。
1.消极权利
2.简介
3.仅限英语
4.嵌套级别
5.生命、自由和财产
6.与社会规范协同
1. Negative Rights
I'm attempting to write the entire Draft EOS.IO Constitution v0.1 using the language of Negative Rights exclusively.
A "negative right" for party A is one that other people respect by refraining from specific actions, such as not physically assaulting A.
It's my belief (and that of other members of the Governance team) that negative rights do the best job of simultaneously protect the rights of the person who holds the right, and protecting maximum freedom of action for everybody else. It's also far easier to make negative rights reciprocal.
1. 消极权利
我试着只使用消极权利的方面写出整个 EOS.IO宪法0.1版本。
对甲方而言，“消极权利”是指其他人不采取具体行动，如不进行身体攻击。
我(以及治理团队的其他成员)认为，消极权利能够同时保护持有权利的人的权利，并保护其他人的最大行动自由。这也更容易让消极权利更加相辅相成。
2. Brevity
My goal is to write a terse document, articulating high level principles, where details and use cases can be worked out by the community over time outside of the Constitution itself. These could take the form of Smart Contract language, Ricardian Contract language, Enclave Agreements, Arbitrator rulings, etc.
2.简介
我的目标是写一份简明扼要的文件，阐明核心原则，详细细节和使用案例可由社区在宪法之外再制定。以上可采用智能合同语言、李嘉图合同语言、飞地协议、仲裁裁决等形式。
3. English Only
Several folks have expressed concern that having two or more equal copies of the Constitution in two or more languages would create chaos, as the translations would inevitably have tiny differences in nuance and meaning. The only way to avoid that is to have a single reference copy in one language. Given the development history of the project, and my own lack of knowledge of any language other than English, I've selected English as the language for the one true Constitution.
3.仅限英语
有人担心，因为语言语义上不可避免地会有细微区别与误解，所以用两种或两种以上语言进行翻译的宪法会造成混乱或不必要的误解。
避免这种情况发生的唯一方法就是在一种语言中使用一个参考附件。考虑到本项目的发展历史，以及我对英语以外其他语言认识的不足，我选择了英语作为此宪法的唯一语言。
4. Nesting Levels
The community has frequently discussed the inevitable, and highly desirable, creation of small communities with their own internal rules of membership and their own mutually recognized rights. Such a setup is known as an "enclave" -- a subset or portion of a larger space, in which the people and rules are distinct and different from their surroundings.
The overall EOSIO Software based mainnet would be the first level. Inside it there could be an Enclave for (say) Gaming, where a special set of Gaming Dapps live, and where people opt in to the Gaming Enclave. Those who opt in, get to access the special Dapps and will be subject to special Gaming Enclave rules. Nested inside the Gaming Enclave there might be a Game Master sub-Enclave with even more special rules, perhaps a one-person, one-vote rule. Disputes would always be resolved within the smallest Enclave that included all the parties of the dispute, and according to the rules of that Enclave, plus any rules inherited from the enclosing Enclaves.
4.嵌套层级
社区经常讨论不可避免的和高度可取的是“飞地”的情况，也就是部分成员相互达成权力共识和在内部形成相当的规则，形成了小型社区——一个更大空间的子集或部分，其中的人和规则与周围的环境截然不同。
基于主网的EOSIO软件将是第一个级别。在它的内部，可能会有一个(比方说)飞地是关于游戏的，那里有一系列特殊的游戏应用程序，人们可以选择进入游戏区。除了可以访问特殊的Dapps之外，同时也将会受到其中的约束。在游戏这个飞地中可能会嵌套一个游戏大师的小飞地，甚至有更特别的规则，这也许会是一人一票的规则。争端总是在争端当事人涉及在内的最小飞地范围内解决，并根据该飞地的规则，继承从属飞地的任何规则。
5. Life, Liberty and Property
The domain of the EOSIO Software is largely property. By this I mean, people don't live in a blockchain, and cannot be arrested or imprisoned by one (although they could be arrested and imprisoned by a government, based on that person's actions on a blockchain). It has been the design goal of the EOSIO project to create an ecosystem that can provide DApps and support for applications that protect human life, liberty and property in ways other systems cannot. The Constitution will be geared toward supporting this mission.
5.生命、自由和财产
EOSIO软件的主要领域是财产。我的意思是，人们不是生活在区块链，也不能被一个人逮捕或监禁(尽管可能基于这个人在区块链上的行为会被一个政府逮捕和监禁)。它一直是EOSIO项目的设计目标，用其他系统不能的方式保护人类的生命、自由和财产，创建一个为应用程序提供DApps和支持的生态系统。宪法将致力于支持这一使命。
6. Synergy with Social Norms
Lawrence Lessig, in the article "The New Chicago School" (published in The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. S2 (June 1998)) notes that four forces influence human behavior within systems: law, social norms, markets, and architecture (i.e., technical infrastructure or code). The Constitution is intended to be crafted in a way that honors and makes room for all four forces to be used in their ideal way.
6.与社会规范协同
Lawrence Lessig在《新芝加哥学派》的文章中(在《法律研究杂志》(1998年6月)第27卷第2期中发表)提到，在一个系统内有四种力量影响着人类行为：法律、社会规范、市场和体系结构(即技术基础设施或代码）。宪法的目的是以荣誉地并和创造一个供四种力量能都按理想方式运行空间的方式来制定宪法。
（以下为跟帖回复内容）
SunTzuPosts: 12 Jr. Member - March 20
SunTzu在3月20日回复此贴
1- Complex!
2,3,6- sure.
4- Nesting Levels. My concern for this is that it sounds nice to talk about as an idea, and is an all encompassing concept - who would argue against giving a community their special enclave?
But when it comes to implementation I think the results may prove hard to turn into benefit. Firstly there will be those who want to reverse certain rights, just because, and this will make it hard to know for the customers of those dapps. Secondly we now have a barrier, a border, where before there was none. When a gaming app wants a derivative trade is it in the gaming enclave or the derivative enclave?
I see this with the Creative Commons project. Much fanfare, but everyone wanted their particular type. And then every country wanted their law. And then we had to do versions... In the end it's just a mess that scares away customers.
Whereas if they'd just said "this is the concept, this is the licence and there's only one of them" they might have had more success. Trying to please everyone can often end up hurting everyone.
1-复杂！
2，3，6-这是一定的
4-嵌套层级。我关心的是，作为一个想法这听起来很好，并且是一个包含所有且没有明确的概念——谁会反对让一个社区有他们特殊的飞地?
但在实施过程中，我认为结果可能很难转化为效益。首先会有一些人想要扭转某些权利，仅仅因为他们将会很难知道在dapps上的客户情况怎么样。第二，我们现在有了一个屏障，一个在之前没有的边界。当一个游戏应用程序想要交易衍生品的时候，它是在游戏飞地还是衍生品飞地进行呢?
我在Creative Commons项目中看到了这一点。大肆宣传极力推崇，但每个人都想要他们特有的类型，每个国家也都想要他们的法律，然后我们要做不同的版本…结果只是一团混乱，吓跑了顾客。
而如果他们只是说“这是概念，而且是他们其中唯一的许可证”，他们可能会更容易成功。试图取悦每一个人往往在最后会伤害到每个人。
5- There's several problems with this.
Firstly, it's a brand of particularly USA and political connotations. That plays well in countries with worse brands and concepts (typically the developing world) and badly in countries with better brands and concepts. It also plays well in countries that have pleasant relations (the West, Asia), but less so in countries with historically fractious history (Middle East, Latin America).
So part of the problem here is that it is rather hard to divorce the politics from the claim, and that makes it a poor fit for a blockchain community that wants harmony for trade not disharmony on politics.
Which is what makes this so hard to go against - it is an insult to disagree with the brand of another country. But it's also an insult to foister a politics onto another. Critics won't therefore disagree verbally but they will disrespect in private, unless there is strong substance to this claim. Which brings up the next point.
As you've laid out above, its applicability is weak. Blockchain is heavy on property, because that's what it is: issuance of assets. But it has little or no or controversial bearing on life and liberty. Also, other concepts such as dignity (German), equality (French) and harmony (China) that are arguably more applicable are left out.
5-这有几个问题。
首先，它是一个品牌，尤其是美国和政治内涵。这在那些品牌和概念糟糕的国家(通常是发展中国家)表现得很好，和那些拥有品牌和概念比较好的国家中表现得糟糕。它在那些有着良好关系的国家(西方，亚洲)也很好，但在历史动荡的国家(中东，拉丁美洲)中则比较差。
因此，这里的问题之一是，很难将政治与这个主张区分开来，这使它成为一个不适合区块链社区的人，因为它希望贸易和谐，而不是政治上的不和谐。
这正是让这一切变得如此艰难的原因——与另一个国家的品牌不同，这是一种无礼。但将政治强加于另一种政治，也是一种无礼。因此，批评人士不会在口头上表达异议，但他们会私下不尊重，除非这种说法有强烈的实质内容。这就引出了下一个问题。
正如你在上面列出的，它的适用性很弱。区块链在财产上的内容很重，因为这就是资产的发行。但它对生命和自由的影响却很少或几乎没有争议。此外，还有其他一些概念，如尊严(德语)、平等(法语)和和谐(中国)，可以说是更适用但被忽略了。
drbitsPosts: 2 Brand New March 21
drbits在3月21日回复此贴
Regarding 4. Nesting Levels,
Do the enclaves supersede mainnet rules? Trying to understand how this would work in practice. I'm picturing these enclave constitution augmentations like a EULA on a website: It adds some rules, but it can't take away any legal rights I already possess.
People generally don't read EULAs and part of the reason for that is that a EULA has somewhat limited power. It can't say something like, "By signing this, you forfeit all assets to the company."
Now if the enclave constitution does supersede, suddenly it's EXTREMELY important that I read it because all bets are off. That seems dangerous and user hostile.
I agree with SunTzu in regards to 5.
关于4的嵌套层级,
飞地是否取代了主要规则?试着去理解这在现实中是如何运作的。我在想象这些飞地宪法就像网站上的EULA一样:它添加了一些规则，但它不能剥夺我已经拥有的任何合法权利。
大家通常不读EULA，部分原因是EULA的权力有限。它不能这样说:“通过签署这个协议，你将把所有的资产都给了公司。”
如果现在飞地的宪法将要实行，我要读它就突然变得非常重要了，因为一切都变得不一样了。这看起来很危险，对用户也不友好。
我同意 SunTzu关于第5条的看法。
TheAwakenmentPosts: 1 Brand New March 21
TheAwakenment在3月21日回复了此贴
Is my favourite part (& yes, that's how you spell it in English)
You can make the protection of life, liberty and property a core ingredient without making it political per se.
I suppose the problem comes when you try and attempt to arbitrate around something visceral such as this i.e. 'the spirit' of of the project. Then it becomes political.
We also need to take into account that a large proportion of EOS token holders bought their tokens precisely because they want to see Dan Larimer's vision for the project unfold in this way.
I'd prefer not to see these club rules too long or too convoluted - especially at the beginning. I think all they need do is represent what we all want to see from the start - A system with a sense of fair play at its heart with a few fail-safes built in. It becomes a minefield of complexity otherwise.
Is this a rough draft of the constitution? or are we to expect more additions to be added later down the line?
第5条是我最喜欢的部分:
你可以使生命、自由和财产的保护成为核心内容，而不使其成为政治本身。
我想问题在于，当你试图对内部进行仲裁比如项目的“精神”之类的东西，它就会变成了政治的内容。
我们还需要考虑到，很大比例的EOS代币持有人之所以购买，因为他们希望看到Dan Larimer对这个项目的愿景能够实现。
我不希望看到这些组织的规则太长或者太复杂——特别是在开始的时候。我认为他们所需要做的就是从一开始就表现出我们所有人都想看到的东西——一个具有公平竞争意识的系统，它的核心部分是内置的一些故障保险。否则，它就变成了一个复杂的雷区。
这是宪法草案吗?或者我们是否能在以后添加更多的内容?
MellPosts: 1 Brand New March 21
Mell在3月21日回复了此贴
Yes I agree with Kyle on 5 , I guess the rules of the constitution will change as the platform matures being more inclusive as time goes by with the emphasis on the power of the people's vote (EOS token holders)
我同意Kyle的观点，我想宪法的规则将会随着时间的推移而改变，人们的投票的权利越来越重要(EOS令牌持有者)
thomasbcoxPosts: 71 Sr. Member - March 22
thomasbcox在3月22日回复了此贴
Great feedback, all. Thank you. (I just edited the text to add numbering to the headers -- we're all referring to things by the item number; making it easier to follow.)
太棒的反馈了！谢谢所有反馈的人！(我只是编辑了文本来增加标题的编号——我们都是按编号来指代事物的；让它更容易跟帖。）
jwilliamsPosts: 4 Brand New March 22
jwilliams在3月22日回复了此贴
The idea of “negative rights” reminds me of what Dan Larimer mentioned (on one of his older blogs) as a slight twist on the Golden Rule: "Don't do unto others as you don't want them to do unto you." Am I misinterpreting the concept of negative rights? Is a constitution of negative rights, basically, a set of “thou shalt nots”?
“消极权利”的概念让我想起了Dan在他的博客中提到的一个关于Golden Rule的小扭曲:“己所不欲，勿施于人。”我是否误解了消极权利的概念?这是一种否定权利的构成，基本上是一套“你应该做的”吗?
Sam_SapoznickPosts: 49 Jr. Member - March 25 edited March 25
Sam_Sapoznick在3月25日回复了此贴
The concept of nesting / enclaves is a natural reflection of the way the larger world is organized. A nation's constitution is the "master" enclave, state constitutions are sub-enclaves of the national one, state legal codes are enclaves within or under the state constitution, county legal codes are enclaves within state legal codes, municipal legal codes are enclaves within state legal codes ---
Motorcycle clubs are a type of enclave with specific traits and needs, regional boat-manufacturing associations have their unique areas of concern, process, etc. etc.
The above picture suggests that enclaves in EOS.IO are a requirement to enable the EOS.IO main-net to accomodate thousands to millions of interest groups in varying arrangements of hierarchy, separation, overlap.
In summary: I support enclaving / nesting as a design principle of the EOS.IO constitution.
嵌套/飞地的概念是更大的世界组织方式的自然反映。一个国家的宪法是“主人”的飞地，州宪法是国家宪法的一部分，州法律法规是州宪法内或州宪法下的飞地，郡的法律法规是州法律法规内的飞地，市法律法规是州法律法规中的飞地。
摩托车俱乐部是一种具有特定特点和需要的飞地，区域的船制造协会有其独特的关注、过程等领域。
上图显示了EOS.IO的飞地是启用EOS的必要条件，EOS.IO主网为成千上万的利益集团提供了不同层次、分离、重叠的安排。
综上所述:我支持EOS.IO宪法设计原则中的飞地/嵌套。
ligongziPosts: 3 Brand New March 26
ligongzi在3月26日回复此贴
4, Nesting Levels is great, and will be the basic framework for self-restraint of the whole district and various communities. This is a very critical part of having to include both its openness and its rigor, and to make everyone's behavior under the strict framework.
5, This is hard to achieve, after all, the most binding of individuals is their human rights and property rights. With the blockchain, the individual attributes are reduced, and even the blockchain asset cannot be fixed to someone. Believe that this is a very slow process, as the chain blocks in the world, the network world and the real world of binding, and more personal credibility, viscosity increases, social relations on the property/life/freedom will have stronger constraints. This part is a big headache，will takes time to consider.Expect more details from Thomas.
6, Lawrence Lessig is a very powerful and forward-looking legal worker in the constitution and Internet law. Able to refer to and based on his theory, believe that the existing social governance will be absorbed and the constraints on the network will actively promote the construction of eos community.
Lessig said The history of American law has been a process of balance.Perhaps eos is formulated in accordance with the constitution of changing community to develop, the basic framework and principle of things, will gradually formed after the June, concrete problems to do specific arbitration.
第4条的嵌套层级很棒！这将是整个地区和分层社区自我约束的基本框架。同时兼顾开放性和严格性是非常关键的部分，每个人的行为需要在严格的框架下。
第5条是很难实现的，毕竟最能约束个人的是人权和财产权。使用区块链时，个人的属性被减少，甚至区块链资产与人不能很好地捆绑在一起。在区块链世界中，网络世界和现实世界的结合，以及更多的个人信誉，粘度的增加等，相信这是一个非常缓慢的过程，社会关系对财产、生命、自由将有更强的约束。这部分是个大难题，需要时间慢慢考量。期待Thomas后续完善更多细节！
第6条，Lawrence Lessig是宪法和互联网法律中有前瞻性的法律工作者。参照他的理论，相信能采纳更多现有的社会治理，网络上的约束将会积极推动EOS社区的建设。
Lessig说美国法律的历史是一个不断寻求平衡的过程。EOS也许也需要根据不断变化的社会结构和基本框架还有一些原则来制定的。这将会在6月后逐渐形成条例，具体问题会有对应的仲裁。
本号翻译转述，
文中观点不代表本号任何立场
本文图片来源于网络
本文原文内容链接来自于https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/424/design-principles-of-my-v0-1-draft-eos-io-constitution，发帖人Thomas Cox，由Lochaiching翻译，Yvonne校对。转载请参照本文文首说明。
更多内容，关注“EOS技术爱好者”！
要是这篇文章对你有用，扫描下面erc-20地址给我们赞赏吧