【EOS Gov】Thomas: 一个关于区块链买选票和腐败的仲裁故事
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，校对Yvonne。转载必须保留以上声明。仅授权原文转载。
本文原文内容链接来自于https://medium.com/@thomas.cox_39839/an-arbitration-story-about-blockchain-vote-buying-and-corruption-3a2d5126e8c2，作者Thomas Cox，由本号“EOS技术爱好者”翻译。
An Arbitration Story about Blockchain Vote Buying and Corruption
一个关于区块链买选票和腐败的仲裁故事
Forbidding bribery and vote-buying in a blockchain Constitution is of course meaningless without enforcement. On previous blockchains, there exist (to the best of my knowledge) no constitution as such, or constitutions with weak or no enforcement. But on an EOSIO Software based blockchain, there are mechanisms for arbitration and enforcement that can make a Constitutional prohibition meaningful.
在区块链宪法框架下禁止贿赂和贿选似乎毫无意义。在之前的区块链上，不存在(我所知的最好的)宪法，或者是软弱、没有执行力的宪法。但是在一个基于区块链的EOSIO软件中，有一些仲裁和执行机制可以使宪法的禁令变得有意义。
Here’s a story about how an arbitration process might play out in such a case. Details may be imperfect and some steps may be omitted (or even in the wrong order compared to how they will eventually evolve in practice), however the overall shape of the story is as accurate as I can make it.
下面是一个关于仲裁程序在这种情况下如何发挥作用的故事。细节可能是不完美的，一些步骤可能会被省略(或者即使是错误的顺序，与它们最终在实践中如何演变相比)，我尽可能将整个框架描述清楚。
The Offense
BP Candidate Corrupt Carl offers money for votes for himself to become a Block Producer. Vinny the Vapid Voter takes the money and votes for Corrupt Carl. All of this can be proven via various sources including public statements, emails, multiple sources of testimony, and various on-chain facts.
开始的源头
BP候选人Corrupt Carl为了成为BP买了选票。Vinny这个选民拿了钱，投票选了Corrupt Carl。包括公开声明、电子邮件、多种证据来源和各种链上的证据都是可以证明的这件事发生过。
The Community Response
Community member Righteous Rachel notices the pay-for-votes scheme and sees that, as a community member, she is harmed. She thus has a cause of action against both Carl and Vinny. Rachel as Claimant initiates an arbitration case against both of them. Rachel puts down a good-faith bond indicating she’s serious and willing to pay damages if her complaint is found to be frivolous. Arbitrator Alex is assigned (the details of assignment and checking for conflicts of interest are omitted here).
社区反应
社区成员正义的一员Rachel注意到“购买选票”的做法，她认为社区成员的利益会因此收到伤害。因此，她对Carl和Vinny都采取了行动。Rachel作为原告向他们二人提起了诉讼，Rachel采用善意诉讼保证金的形式来表明对此事她是认真的，要是发现不该小题大做，她愿意为此赔付保证金。此案Alex被指定为仲裁员(此处省略了分配和检查利益冲突的细节)。
“good-faith”含义
The Arbitration Begins
Alex checks and sees that Rachel has no track record of bad faith arbitration complaints, and has placed a bond. Alex, as Arbitrator of an active case, sends notice to Carl that he has been named as Respondent in an arbitration case. Carl is not considered a flight risk because he has a large presence and is actively campaigning for Block Producer; he will have to lay a deposit.
In contrast, Alex feels that Vinny is a flight risk because his account has no other data and was only opened a few weeks before. To mitigate this risk, Alex takes the dramatic and unusual step of ordering the account of Vinny frozen until he responds to the charges. Vinny can unfreeze his account by placing an amount of tokens equal to the likely judgment (or possibly a percentage of the likely amount) into a bond fund (like escrow or paying bail).
The BPs respond automatically to the arbitrator’s properly formed order, and freeze the account of Vinny.
With his account frozen, Vinny cannot now ignore the community. Carl responds to the notice of arbitration, funds his arbitration bond account, and prepares his defense. Vinny goes silent and his account remains frozen.
仲裁开始
Alex检查了Rachel没有恶意仲裁投诉的记录，并且交了一笔保证金。Alex作为一个活跃的仲裁员，通知Carl已成为该案件的被告。Carl不具有跑路风险，因为有大量的证据证明他在积极地为竞选BP做活动，他将不得不存一笔钱。
而Alex认为Vinny是有跑路风险的，因为他的帐户没有其他数据，而且就在几个星期前才开户。为了减轻风险，Alex采取了一种不寻常的步骤——冻结Vinny的账户，直到他回应指控。Vinny可以解冻他的账户，直到他存放(如托管或保释)仲裁金额等价值(或可能是数额的一部分)的token。
BP们自动执行仲裁员拟定的命令，冻结Vinny的账户。
由于Vinny的账户被冻结，他现在不得不重视社区的声音了。Carl对仲裁通知作出回应，向仲裁账户提交了保证金，并准备辩护。而Vinny在账户被冻结后没有发声，没有回应。
The Arbitration Process Takes Place
Over the course of many days or weeks (30 to 90 days is not unusual), all sides are given ample opportunity to exchange information relevant to the case, to rebut one side’s facts with more accurate and complete facts, etc. Each can retain outside expertise to help them if they wish.
Alex, seeing the importance of the case, uses a portion of the arbitrator’s fee (calculated as a portion of the money at risk) to hire a professional arbitrator as a “second seat.” (Were the case large enough, Alex would be part of a three-person Arbitration Board. For simplicity we assume a single arbitrator in this story.)
By the end of the arbitration process, both sides have heard all evidence and been given opportunity to comment on and challenge all evidence. The Arbitrator has asked questions and assembled the facts.
仲裁程序进行
在数天或数周时间(30至90天并不罕见),各方都有足够的机会来交换信息相关的情况下，让事实更准确和完整。如果他们愿意，双方都可以借助外部的专家意见来帮助自己。
Alex看到了这个案子的重要性，他使用了仲裁员的一部分费用(按风险的一部分计算)聘请专业仲裁员作为副手 (如果案件足够大的话，Alex将成为三人仲裁委员会的一员。为了简单起见，我们假设在这个故事中有一个仲裁者）。
在仲裁程序结束时，双方都已收取了所有证据，并有机会对所有证据发表评论和提出质疑。仲裁员提出了问题，并收取事实资料。
The Arbitrator Rules
By now over 30 days have elapsed. Carl has suspended his vote-buying campaign so that he doesn’t expose himself to even more liability, in case he loses. Nobody can find Vinny. Alex has taken great pains to write a detailed Finding and an Order, with help from her professional arbitrator assistant.
Alex publishes the Finding and the Order. It lays out all findings of facts, as well as the judgment and what needs to happen to satisfy the judgment.
Carl is found to have clearly violated the Constitution. Because of this, Alex is empowered to order Carl’s account to be permanently frozen and all his tokens confiscated. However, because it’s Carl’s first offense, Alex follows community standards for first offenders and orders that Carl be fined 10% of his tokens and be banned from candidacy as a Block Producer for 90 days.
The entire record of the case is published on IPFS and the hash of the case is entered into the blockchain for this Arbitration case.
Carl’s on-chain record now shows one good-faith arbitration case which he lost. When he pays his fine and serves his time, his record will show he discharged his debt and is in good standing with the community. (If he re-offends, he will no longer be a first-time offender.)
As the whistle blower, Rachel receives a portion of Carl’s forfeited tokens, and her bond is returned to her. Her record shows one good-faith arbitration case which she won.
Vinny’s account remains frozen. He too violated the Constitution. Alex has ordered that he forfeit the bribe money he received, plus a penalty equal to twice that amount. His account doesn’t have that much, so his balance is ordered to be reduced to zero and his tokens are transferred to an account used to pay restitution to victims.
仲裁员的规则
到现在已经超过30天了。Carl停止买选票的行为，以防案子输了承担更多的责任。没有人可以找到Vinny。Alex在专业的仲裁员的帮助下，花了很大力气地写了一份详细的调查报告和执行命令。
Alex公布了调查报告和指令，并列出事实及论证过程。
Carl具有明显违宪行为。综上，Alex被授权下令永久冻结Carl的账户，并没收他的所有代币。然而，因为这是Carl的第一次犯事，Alex遵循了首次违规的社区标准，Carl被罚款10%的代币，并且在90天内禁止参选BP。
整个案件的记录都在IPFS上发布，这个案件的哈希值被输入到区块链中进行仲裁。
Carl在链上的记录现在显示了他在一个善意的仲裁案件输了。当他支付他的罚款和时间时，他的记录将显示他免除了他的债务，并重新在社区中不作恶(如果他再犯，就不再是初犯的待遇了)。
作为揭发者，Rachel收到了一部分Carl被没收的分配，她的保证金也返还给她。记录显示了她赢得的一个善意的仲裁案件。
Vinny的账户仍然冻结，他违反了宪法。Alex已经发一个没收贿款的命令，再加上一倍的罚金。Vinny的帐户没有那么多的余额，所以他的余额被清空为零，代币被转移到一个帐户用来支付给受害者。
The Enforcement
Carl wishes to remain in good standing with the community. He pays his fine voluntarily and, after his 90 day suspension, resumes campaigning for BP, but no longer offers to pay for votes.
Alex’s order to take Vinny’s token balance is entered with the BPs, who see that it is a properly formed order by an assigned Arbitrator on an open arbitration case. At least 15 BPs sign the transaction (meeting the multi-sig requirement) to transfer Vinny’s token balance to the restitution fund. That transaction goes into a 30 day queue, at the end of which, if Vinny hasn’t returned to dispute it and nothing else arises to challenge it, the transaction will take place.
执行
Carl希望与社区保持良好的关系。他自愿支付罚款，在他被暂停90天之后，继续竞选BP，但他不再为选票付钱。
要取Vinny代币余额的命令是Alex与BP一起执行的，他们认为这是一个由指定的仲裁员在一个公开的仲裁案件中形成的正确的秩序。至少有15个BP签署了交易(满足多个签名要求)，将Vinny的代币余额转移到返还基金。交易进入了一个30天的候列，最后，如果Vinny重新质疑它，或者没有其他的事情来阻碍它的进程，这个交易将会自动执行。
The Aftermath
Friends of Carl (FoC) who want to get away with vote-buying try to pick apart Alex’s case. Carl, afraid of being a second offender, stays clean.
One FoC attempts to challenge the Arbitration ruling with an appeal, and files a new arbitration case naming Alex as the respondent. This case is thrown out because arbitrators are exempt from liability for their rulings, and FoC’s bond is forfeit. The FoC then files a new case against the ruling, saying it was decided incorrectly. This case is assigned an arbitrator who quickly finds against FoC, whose case was so weak he now has a record of filing a bad-faith arbitration request. He forfeits his deposit and loses reputation.
If the FoC tries yet again to appeal, it’s likely nobody will agree to be arbitrator, or that the deposit and fee required will be very high.
Meanwhile, other BP candidates begin to realize that they are at risk if they offer to pay for votes. Voters realize that, as whistle blowers, they can turn any offer they get to be paid for their vote into a very lucrative arbitration case. Vote-buying goes underground and becomes a tiny fraction of all voting. (BP rewards on an EOSIO software based blockchain are tuned to be modest — too small to make widespread vote buying cost-effective.)
后续余波
Carl的朋友(FoC)想要避开买票这件事来选Alex的案子。Carl害怕成为再犯者，不再碰这样的事情。
其中一个FoC想要挑战仲裁裁决，并提交了一份新的仲裁案件，让Alex成为被告。此案被驳回，因为仲裁员不承担其裁决的责任，而FoC的诉讼保证金则被没收。随后，FoC提出了一个反对该判决的新案子，称判决结果有误。案件指派另一个仲裁员，FoC的起诉材料很快被发现不够充分，结果就是现在FoC有一个恶意仲裁请求的记录。他被罚掉了保证金，也失去了信誉。
如果FoC再次尝试上诉，很可能没有人会同意成为仲裁员，或者要求保证金和费用会很高。
与此同时，其他BP候选人会意识到买选票将要面临的风险。选民们意识到要是做一个揭发者得到的报酬会如此诱人。买选票这种事情将会转向暗处交易，不可避免成为所有投票中的一小部分（BP对基于EOSIO软件的奖励范围是合适的——规模太小，不足以让大部分买选票的人成本划算)。
The Analysis
Who was punished worse, Vinny or Carl? Vinny might have only faced a fine of $30 on a $10 bribe. But, Vinny did something unforgivable: he didn’t face up to his actions and take responsibility. He opted out of the community by opting out of a core value, arbitration. No community can survive if it lacks core values and if it cannot determine who is in and who is out. If Vinny ever tries to rejoin under another account name, and gets tied back to this unfinished business, he will still have to clean up his mess and make restitution to the community.
Carl might have paid a much larger fine — his 10% loss might have amounted to $1 million USD or more — but Carl faced the community, obeyed the ruling, and mended his behavior. Carl has behaved as we would want him to, as someone willing to take responsibility.
分析
谁受到了更大的惩罚，Vinny还是Carl？Vinny可能只会因为10美元的贿赂而被罚款30美元。但是，Vinny做了一些不可原谅的事情：他没有勇敢地面对自己的行为并承担责任。他退出了社区，放弃了核心价值——仲裁。如果没有核心价值，不能明确是非对错，没有一个社区可以生存下去。如果Vinny试图重新加入另一个账户的名字，继续这个没有完全完成的事情，他将仍然需要清理他的烂摊子，并对社区进行赔偿。
Carl可能付出了更大的代价——他10%的损失可能达到了100万美元甚至更多——但是Carl面对着社区，服从了裁决，纠正了他的行为。Carl表现得像我们希望的那样，作为一个愿意承担责任的人。
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://medium.com/@thomas.cox_39839/an-arbitration-story-about-blockchain-vote-buying-and-corruption-3a2d5126e8c2，作者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 !