【翻译】在EOS上实现可延展且可信赖的网络纠纷解决方法
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Sussi。校对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
https://medium.com/@EosMetal/a-way-towards-scalable-and-trusted-dispute-resolution-network-on-eos-23be726f3657
"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）！
A way towards Scalable and Trusted Dispute Resolution Network on EOS
一种在EOS(区块链操作系统)上实现可延展并且可信赖的网络纠纷解决方法
来源：EOSMetal
翻译：Sussi
校对：Lochaiching
EOS network is stepping towards Referendum and debates around constitution are sparking up. Since our last post on introducing Tungsten, ECAF check and balances have been revised by Ian Grigg (Advisor on Arbitration Working Group, EOS Alliance).One of the major modification is — now BPs retain the power to judge the awards and execute based on the rulings.
EOS网络正在走向公投，并且围绕宪法的讨论正在升温。自从我们上一次在introducingTungsten（中文版链接：【翻译|公告】用于dApp层面治理的Tungsten（PoC版本））上发帖子以来，Ian Grigg(EOS联盟的仲裁工作的组的顾问)已经修订了ECAF的审查和制衡（准则）。其中一个主要的修改是——现在BP们保留了基于准则进行裁决和执行的权力。
图片译文如下：
1.准则和指令是为团体审查发布的
2.BPS与/或缔约方可以通过提交上诉来申诉准则中的任何指示
3.最终，BPs与/或缔约方可能产生冲突——这会导致我们所说的团队危机——因为这基本上意味着团队中三个“权力”方中的两方存在分歧。这就需要第三方来解决矛盾。 在这种情况下，如果BPS违反了仲裁员的命令，那么就要进行全民公投。如果团体支持BPs，那么Arb的里就受损。如果团体支持Arb，那BPs就需要让一步。
4.分歧
5.在ECAF论坛中，仲裁员们可以相互讨论他们的裁决，并可以寻求顾问的建议。这回事一场有些棘手的对话，因为我们必须小心翼翼，不去强迫重裁员采纳我们的建议——我们
Current Proposal of Check and balances by Ian Grigg on EOSGov —
1. transparency of the process — filing, case. Albeit the Arbitrator has some latitude to close off some elements here.
2. the public ruling which some few will make a process of reading and critiquing, which critique will stick to the name of the Arbitrator.
3. the in-forum appeal process.
4. the decision of parties, BPs and other impacted persons to enforce or deny the ruling.
5. the ability of ECAF to provide some non-case pressure. Mostly, no more cases.
6. disciplinary hearings.
7. the impact of the Community referenda to speak as a third head of power.
8. appeals to national courts.
现在Ian Grigg在EOSGov中关于核查和制衡建议——
1.过程的透明度——整理归档，案件。尽管仲裁员有一定权限封锁一些元素
2.在公开仲裁中少数人将进行阅读和批评的过程，这将会以仲裁员的名义进行
3.在论坛上上诉的过程
4.当事人，BP们和其他有影响力的人对于执行还是拒绝仲裁的决定
5.ECAF提供一些非案件压力的能力。 大多数情况下，没有多余的案例
6.纪律听证会
7.社会公投的影响力作为首要力量发言
8.向国家法院上诉
ECAF rulings are now proposed to be non-binding i.e they may or may not be enforced by BPs. Though non-binding award/rulings help with maintaining check and balances, the approach seems to be impractical if one consider scaling and efficiency. Our arguments against the proposal are—
现在看来，ECFA的裁决是不具约束力的，也就是说，它们可能会被BP们强制执行，也可能不会。虽然没有约束力的判定/裁决有助于维护核查和制衡，但如果考虑延展性和效率的话，这种做法似乎是不切实际的。 我们反对这项提议的理由是——
1. Inefficient Structure.
In case of any dispute, a claimant files a claim on ECAF with piece of evidences. If dispute needs an account being frozen (in most cases), an emergency arbitrator gets assigned who looks into evidence (could even demand more pieces of evidence) and give an arbitral order to freeze accounts.
1.没有效率的结构
如果有任何争议，原告向RCAF提出要证据的要求。如果争议需要冻结帐户（在大多数情况下），紧急仲裁员就会被指派去调查证据（甚至可以要求更多的证据）并下达冻结帐户的仲裁命令。
Case details and execution history — https://eoscorearbitration.io/case-ecaf00000441/
案例细节和执行历史——https://eoscorearbitration.io/case-ecaf00000441（https://eoscorearbitration.io/case-ecaf00000441）
Active Block Producers need to judge an arbitration order (as they are not-binding and are at discretion of BPs), reach consensus (21/21 BPs) on whether to blacklist/freeze an account or not. Once consensus is reached, the claimed account gets frozen by BPs.
有源区块生产者需要判断仲裁命令（因为它们不具有约束力，并且由BP决定），就是否将一个账户列入黑名单或冻结达成共识（21/21BP）。 一旦达成共识，被告的账户就会被BP们冻结。
In simple terms, a claimant needs to act within the 3-days of staking period, collect enough evidence to prove his claim and remains on the mercy of Emergency arbitrator plus 21 Active BPs to work effectively. There already have been two cases where hacker accounts made their way out of blacklist as BPs weren’t able to reach consensus or failed to update the blacklist.
简而言之，原告需要在规定的3天内采取行动，收集足够的证据来证明他的诉求，并继续听从紧急仲裁员和21位BP们的指令，以便他们有效地工作。由于BP不能达成共识或未能更新黑名单，黑客的账户就顺利脱离了黑名单的情况已经发生了两次。
2. Scalability
Expansion of EOS Network will lead to many disputes which will demand fast actions by Arbitrators as well as the Block Producers. We don’t feel the Dispute Resolution structure in its current form could work or effectively scale, putting our arguments forward -
a.Assumption voters will vote out BPs if they don’t comply with legit orders.
Let’s look at the problem of DPOS. On paper, BPs are ‘decentralised’. We can even measure it at 21. And the community will praise and punish via voting.
Except, that’s not what is happening. The community are NOT praising and punishing BPs. What is happening is that a small group of cooperating whales are pushing the BPs up and down according to some internal agenda that they are not revealing. — Ian Grigg (@suntzu)
Source
Whales may or may not care much about the arbitral award by ECAF or the judgement of whales. Even if they do, it would be very difficult for the voters to keep themselves updated on actions of Block Producers whether they comply with an arbitral award or not. Secondly, BPs judgement would be biased towards whales and big proxies to keep themselves in business.
2.可扩展性
EOS网络的扩展将导致许多纠纷，这就要求仲裁员和BP们快速行动。我们认为，目前形式的争端解决结构无法工作或有效扩展，我们提出我们的论据——
a.假定投票的人如果不遵守法律指令，他们就会投票给BP们。
让我们看看DPOS的问题。理论上，BP们是“去中心化的”。我们甚至可以在21名中进行测量，并且社区将会通过投票进行奖励和惩罚。
而事情并不是这样进行的，社区并不会奖励或者惩罚BP。事实是，一小群相互合作的巨鲸们正在根据它们没有公布的一些内部事项在推动BP。— Ian Grigg (@suntzu)
这些巨鲸可能会关心ECAF对巨鲸的裁决，也或许不会。即使他们关心，投票的人也很难随时了解BP们的行动，不能得知他们是否遵守仲裁裁决。其次，BP们的判决会偏向于巨鲸和大的代理账号，来维持自己的商业行为。
b. Small size disputes
We need to think of a structure which considers $20–100 disputes and is automated. We could not expect human intervention in every possible claim on the network. Human intervention would increase the prices of dispute resolution, in current scenarios $20 disputes may not even be considered. To suggest that BPs should look into every $50-$100 claims will be wrong in itself and has a weak standing.
Any mediation through current model need to be followed by emergency actions by BPs (account freeze or transaction reversed), which should be automated to no human intervention.
b.小规模纠纷
我们需要思考一个自动化的解决20-100美元纠纷的框架。我们不能指望人工处理网络上的所有种类的诉讼案件。人工处理会增加解决纠纷的价格，在目前的情况下，甚至不会考虑用人工处理的方式解决20美元的纠纷。建议BP们处理所有50-100美元的案件这样的说法本来就站不住脚。
任何通过当前模型进行调解的纠纷都需要由BP进行紧急行动（账户冻结或交易逆转），而这应该是自动化的，不需要人工服务。
c. Inconvenient
Further we believe it won’t be right to assume ECAF and BPs will act fast and safeguard from hacks/scams/stolen funds, it would lead to more disputes and chaos when scammer could transfer tokens to DEX and exchange them for new tokens of TLOS/Worbli.
We are stepping towards mass adoption (with thousand of dApplication and millions of users), it’s too much of workload for a single entity in managing or reviewing external forums/court rulings.
c.不方便
此外，我们认为，假设ECAF和BP们将快速采取行动并防范黑客/骗子/资金被盗是不对的，当诈骗者将token转移到DEX并把它换成新的TLOS/ Worbli token时，会导致更多的争议和混乱。
我们正在走向被社区大规模地采用(有成千上万的dApplication和数百万的用户)，在需要管理或审查外部论坛/法院裁决时，对单个组织来说工作量太大了。
Could we have many forums resolving disputes?
The current structure gives you the freedom of opt-in for different forums at dApplication level but any award by external court needs to reviewed by ECAF to get it enforced by BPs.
我们能有多个论坛来解决纠纷吗？
当前的结构让你可以在dApplication层面自由选择不同的论坛，但是任何外部法院的判决都需要由ECAF进行审查，以便BP们可以强制执行。
Reasons being-
1.It would be difficult for BPs to consider ruling from many forums opted in by the community.
2. Any arbitration forum without skin in the game or anything at stake could be influenced either by competitor dApplication/ bad actor in his favor.
3.Interestingly one point which has been raised many times in Gov chat is if national courts are willing to get their rulings enforced against certain party in their jurisdiction they need to claim on ECAF as Claimant.
原因是——
1、BP们很难考虑由团体选的多个论坛做出的判决。
2、任何在竞争中没有包装的论坛或者利益攸关的事情都会受到对对手有利的dApplication/坏角色的影响。
3、有趣的是，在治理群组中多次提到的一个观点是，如果国家法院愿意对他们管辖范围内的某一方执行强制裁决，那么他们就需要向ECAF申请赔偿。
视频地址：https://youtu.be/Bjxtz7pD-fQ
Need for Fourth Party (Automation) in Dispute Resolution
Though EOS is still in its infancy, it is scaling rampantly and has become one of the most used Blockchains for now. With scaling of the network, automation becomes important in terms of Online Dispute Resolution to establish trust among the community members and offer them hassle free services. Ebay has been at the forefront of online dispute resolution and there are many lessons we could take from Colin Rule (Former Director of ODR on Ebay).
纠纷解决中第四方（自动）的需求
虽然EOS还处于起步阶段，但它正在逐渐发展，并已成为目前使用最广泛的区块链之一。随着网络规模的扩大，为了在团体成员之间建立信任，并且为他们提供免费的服务，自动化在解决在线纠纷方面变得非常重要。 Ebay一直处于在线解决纠纷的前沿水平，我们可以从Colin Rule（前Ebay ODR董事）那里学到很多东西。
Key points from Colin Rule’s published paper “What we know and need to know about online dispute Resolution” and why we think automation will be needed?
1. The number of disputes increases whenever transactions and relationships increase.
2. The more novel the activity, the greater the likelihood of disputes. The first iteration of an innovative product or activity rarely anticipates all the disputes that it will generate.
3. The more valuable the item or issue in question, the more likely it is that a problem or grievance will turn into a dispute.
4. Speed and time pressures lead to disputes. If the value is likely to erode quickly, as is often the case with technology, a pressure to protect and aggressively extend its value increases.
5. Increased complexity in relationships and systems create more opportunities for disputes. In the words of computer scientist Peter Neumann, “Complex systems break in complex ways.” When informing shareholders about a federal investigation of problems in correcting errors, Experian stated that “We might fail to comply with international, federal, regional, provincial, state or other jurisdictional regulations, due to their complexity, frequent changes or inconsistent application and interpretation.”
6. The easier it is to complain (by filling out an online form or sending an email), the more disputes there will be.
7. The lack of transparency in algorithms leads to disputes.
8. The less attention is given to preventing disputes, the more disputes there will be.
Colin Rule发表的论文“关于在线纠纷解决我们知道什么与需要知道什么”的核心论点和我们为什么认为需要自动化
1.每当交易和关系的数量增加时，纠纷的数量就会增加。
2.活动越新颖，产生纠纷的可能性就越大。创新产品或活动的首次迭代不太能预知它将引起的所有纠纷。
3.有问题的项目或问题越有价值，问题或申诉就越有可能变成纠纷。
4. 速度和时间压力会产生纠纷。如果像在技术领域常见的那样，价值迅速下跌，那么保护和积极提高它价值的压力就会增加。
5.越来越复杂的关系和系统让产生纠纷的可能性增加。用计算机科学家Peter Neumann的话说，“复杂系统以复杂的方式断裂。” Experian在向股东说明联邦调查在纠正错误方面的问题时，表示，“我们可能由于国际、联邦、区域、省、州或其他司法条例的复杂性、多变性或不同的应用和解释，而未能遵守这些条例。”
6.越容易抱怨（填写在线表格或发电子邮件的时候），纠纷就越多。
7.算法缺乏透明度导致了纠纷。
8.越不注意防止产生纠纷，产生的纠纷就越大
Taking steps towards including Forth Party in Dispute Resolution
Ethan Katsh and Janet Riftkin’s book Online Dispute Resolution had introduced the concept of the fourth party, in which technology could play a dispute resolution role separate from the human third party. eBay following the concept decided to write a software program to assist the parties in resolving disputes and to involve neutrals only on an exceptional basis.
采取措施将第四方纳入纠纷解决
Ethan Katsh和Janet Riftkin的书“在线争议解决”引入了第四方的概念，书中的技术可以扮演与人类这一第三方分离的解决纠纷的角色。eBay遵循这一理念，决定编写一个软件程序来帮助双方解决纠纷，并只在例外情况下引入中立者。
Much like EOS, eBay had a large influx of claims from many countries involved, the disputes were resolved faster with the help of Paypal as a partner following chargebacks mechanisms (A chargeback, also referred to as a payment dispute, occurs when a cardholder questions a transaction and asks their card-issuing bank to reverse it.)
和EOS非常相似，eBay有大量涉及许多国家的理赔案件，在合作伙伴Paypal的退款机制的帮助下，纠纷得到了更快速的解决。（退款，也称为支付纠纷，发生在持卡人对交易提出质疑并要求其发卡银行撤销交易的时候。）
Chargebacks act like the collaterals/escrow which transfers money back (without any evidence) in the customer's account. The vendors have the burden of proving that the merchandise or service was given according to the contract terms, once that is proven the bank transfer effective payment to the vendor.
退款行为就像抵押/托管一样，在客户的账户中转回资金（没有任何证据）。一旦证明银行给卖方的付款是有效的，卖方就有责任证明商品或服务是根据合同条款提供的。
Further Ebay took the staircase approach, beginning with problem diagnosis and working with the complainant, then using technology to assist negotiation and finally moving to an evaluation phase where eBay and its payment provider, PayPal, would decide the case if the transaction partners could not do so.
The complete structure brings trust, convenience, and technical expertise.
此外，eBay采取了阶段式的方法，他们和投诉人一起，从问题诊断开始，然后使用技术协助谈判，最后转移到一个评估阶段，在这个阶段，如果交易方不能决定，eBay和他的支付服务提供伙伴Paypal就会做出决断。
这个完整的框架带来了信任，便利，和技术专长。
How could we have similar trust and convenience for regular users on EOS or a decentralized network without involving BPs?
In a decentralized network, it becomes difficult to implement chargebacks as one would need intervention by BPs to revert the transactions. The best way around the problem is trusting parties putting the bond or implementing transaction bonds on dApp level.
在没有涉及BP们的情况下，我们如何才能为EOS或去中心化网络上的常规用户提供类似的信任和便利？
在去中心化的网络中，因为恢复交易需要BP们的干预，所以退款变得困难。围绕问题的最好方法是信任方将债券或交易债券放在dAppication级别。
EOSMetal is working on introducing Bond Structure on EOS Network. Please read Tungsten introductory post to have more understanding around Bond/collateral here.
EOSMetal正致力于在EOS网络上引入Bond结构。请阅读Tungsten上的介绍，在这里（https://medium.com/@EosMetal/introducing-proof-of-concept-tungsten-for-dapplication-level-governance-fea8b0a452e9）了解更多关于Bond/担保品的内容。
Bond/Collateral will help with trust and automation (staircase approach followed by eBay). Any claimant need not be at the mercy of BPs or emergency Arbitrators taking the action or use third party Escorws, he/she could claim and put forwards pieces of evidence in the time-period mentioned in the collateral.
Bond/抵押品将有助于信任和自动化（eBay遵循的阶段式）。任何原告都不用受到BP或采取行动的紧急仲裁员或使用第三方Escorws的支配，他/她可以在抵押品中提到的时间段内提交证据。
Free Market Competition for Arbitration Forums
Competition among different forums incentives them to work efficiently and resolve disputes fast. It also drives innovation and convenient services to increase their market share. Further, with opt-in arbitration and free market competition, many forums located in different countries could help to lower the fees structure.
仲裁论坛的自由市场竞争
不同论坛之间的竞争激励他们高效地工作，并且快速解决纠纷。它还推动创新和便利的服务来增加他们的市场份额。此外，通过选择仲裁和自由市场竞争，不同国家的许多论坛可以帮助降低结构费用。
A big shout out to EOS Network proposal “Free Market Competition for Dispute Resolution: {{Regarbitrator}}/{{Regforum}}”
对EOS网络提案“纠纷解决的自由市场竞争：{{Regarbitrator}} / {{Regforum}}”（https://medium.com/eos-new-york/free-market-dispute-resolution-on-eos-identifying-arbitrators-arbitration-forums-on-chain-via-663bd8ad9c56）的大力宣传。
Mediation by Technology
There will always be a huge influx of similar disputes on the network which could be used for analytics and further for preparing the technology-driven questionnaire to guide claimant and making the whole process convenient. The questionnaire could help to filter the disputes and aid mediation using Technology based on precedents of similar claims.
技术调解
在网络上总会有大量相似的纠纷，这些纠纷可以用于分析，还可以进一步用于准备技术驱动的调查问卷，来指导索赔人，并使整个过程变得方便。调查问卷可以帮忙对纠纷进行过滤，并以之前相似的索赔案例为基础使用技术进行调解。
eBay follows a similar approach i.e in dispute a software collects the maximum data for evidence followed by mediation using the technology. Mediation is generally based on data derived from similar claims categorized into different categories like non-receipt, non-as-described etc. Different types help to structure pinpoint questions around claims, which assist with mediations and with filtration for human intervention.
eBay使用类似的方法，即在争议中，软件最大限度对证据的数据进行收集，然后使用这种技术进行调解。调解通常是基于从不同类别中收集的相似诉求的数据，例如非接收，非表述等。
不同的类型有助于围绕诉求构建精确的问题，这有助于调解和过滤人类干预。
How would it all be implemented on EOS?
Let’s try to understand the process of taking an example -
1.Alice develops a dApplication and put a claimable bond (using Bond dApp) of value X naming an arbitration forum (which uses Technology as Forth Party).
2.Bob (non-tech savvy) looking at dApplication bond and certificates, buys some service from the dApp. Later he finds out that the services(or product) wasn’t offered as promised and ends up in a dispute with Alice’s dApplication.
3.Bob puts a claim against the Alice’s dApplications bond.
4.The mentioned Arbitration forums start collecting the pieces of evidence and puts a questionnaire for Bob. Bob puts all the pieces of evidence on public forums.
5.Looking at the evidences a software uses previous(similar) claims as precedent and put a suitable agreement/solution for Bob and Alice. If both parties agree to the solution, the claim gets resolved.
6.Unresolved claim steps up for human intervention and forum assigns Human Arbitrator.
7.If the award by arbitrator comes in favour of Bob, Arbitrator could enforce the ruling and transfer Token from the bond to Bob’s address without the need of Block Producer.
在EOS上怎样实现
让我们举个例子试着理解这个过程
1.Alice开发了一个dApplication，并用一个价值X的索赔Bond命名（使用Bond dApplication）一个仲裁论坛（将自动科技作为第四方）。
2.Bob（技术小白）看了dApplicaiton和证书，从这个dApplication上购买了一些服务。之后他发现他购买的服务（或产品）并不是之前dApplication上保证的那样，最终Bob就与Alice的dApplication发生了纠纷。
3.Bob对Alice的dApplication bond提出索赔。
4.之前提到的仲裁论坛开始手机证据并且给了Bob一份调查问卷。Bob将所有的证据放到了公共论坛上。
5.查看证据之后，软件以之前相似的诉讼请求为先例，为Bob和Alice提供一份和解/解决方案。如果双方都同意这个方案，这个诉讼请求就解决了。
6.没有解决的诉讼请求就交由人工处理，论坛会为他们分配人工仲裁员。
7.如果仲裁员做出的判决对Bob有利，那不需要由区块链供应商，仲裁员就可以执行裁决并把令牌从债券转移到Bob的地址。
For More information on Tungsten, please watch —
想了解更多Tungsten的信息，请看——
视频地址：https://youtu.be/LCjOMO0f_6E
Cryptolions are working on Bond dApplication as well, check out the interview to know more —
Cryptolions也在研究Bond dApplication，查看访谈以了解更多信息——
视频地址：https://youtu.be/VlTwhR2npdc
Please drop any questions/feedback/suggestion on our Telegram Channel: https://t.me/@eosbond
如果有任何问题/反馈/建议，请发布在我们的Telegram频道：https://t.me/@eosbond
本文图片来源于英文原文
关于EOShenzhen的详细介绍可见：
不同入口如何投票：
更多內容，加入我们的知识星球吧～
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