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。
The Governed Blockchain
受治理的区块链
作者：Ian Grigg
翻译：Lochaiching
Abstract: A blockchain is a platform controlled only by software rules, often termed a permissionless ledger. As the corporate world has entered into this new territory, it has modified the original vision to create permissioned blockchains. This mechanism, deployed to control anarchic and fraudulent behaviour, both, is familiar and effective, but comes with costs - it shuts out the small business, the engine of growth and innovation.
摘要：区块链是一种仅受软件规则控制的平台，通常被称为不需得到许可的分类帐本。随着商业逐渐开始进入这一新的领域寻求自己的一席之地，区块链最初的设想已经开始略有变化了——需要得到许可的区块链逐渐有了需求。这种用于控制无政府主义和欺诈性行为的机制，既熟悉又高效，但也伴随着成本——它将推动增长和创新的小企业拒之门外。
What would a blockchain for small business look like? From 1st principles, business needs a stable and safe environment, one in which its community is for it not against it. The missing element is the trust that a community can work together to resolve a disaster.
区块链中，小型企业会怎样呢？从第一个原则来看，商业需要一个相对稳定和安全的环境，并且在这个环境中，这个社区不反对它的存在。而缺少的因素是整个社区可以协作并共同解决社区危机的那份信任。
As blockchain isn’t that environment, the big money waits on the sidelines. To build trust onto a blockchain, we add a modicum of classical institutions of governance: a set of rules, and mechanisms to keep people within the rules. But, crucially, we do not need to build a wall around to lock small business out.
既然区块链上述的情况，来自外部的大笔资金就只能先在一旁观望，看看先行者会出现什么情况。为了在区块链上建立信任，我们添加了一些传统惯用的治理机构：一套让大家遵纪守法的规则和机制。但最重要的是，我们不需要将小企业拒之门外。
We call the result The Governed Blockchain as a 3rd alternative to permissioned versus permissionless ledgers. It preserves the free entry of open blockchains, but imposes rules of behaviour within the blockchain’s Constitution, and methods to feedback responsibility on bad behaviour.
这样趋势导致的结果称为受治理的区块链，作为许可与非许可分类账簿的第三种选择。它保留了区块链自由进入的开放性，但在区块链的公约（Constitution）中规定了行为规则，以及制定了当事人对不良行为的负责方式。
The Governed Blockchain invites the entrepreneur in to build a business with some basic level of safety and security, that their business will not be destroyed by black swans and other disasters. It invites capital to deploy into blockchain to build business, where before, entrepreneurs were holding back.
这个受治理的区块链邀请企业家共同建立一个具有基本安全水平的商业标的，使他们的企业不会被黑天鹅现象和其他灾难破坏殆尽。同时，它邀请资本到区块链部署并建立业务，而在此之前，企业家们还在犹豫。
Notes.
The permanent home of this paper is http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html. A working draft is located in [working draft] .
IanG is a partner and advisor of block.one, the authors of EOS.IO software, however the words and concepts are his and not an official or approved position of block.one.
Credits. This paper received substantial editorial work by Eva Stöwe. Many others have reviewed and commented: Dan Larimer, Arthur Doohan, Thomas Cox, Ian Panchèvre, Jeff Daub.
· This paper has been presented through late 2017:
◦ 20th Sept 2017 - Hong Kong Bitkan's video（）;
◦ 16th Oct 2017 - London at Mattereum’s event video （http://internetofagreements.com/2017/12/13/ian-grigg-mattereum/）;
◦ 18th Oct 2017 - London EOS Meetup;
◦ 29th Oct 2017 - Cyprus Decentralized2017 slides（https://www.decentralized.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Ian-Grigg-The-Governed-Blockchain.pdf） & video（）;
◦ 6th April 2018 - EOS meetup Hong Kong
◦ 22nd May 2018 - Frankfurt School of Finance & Management
备注：
本文的永久主页是http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html ，一个正在写的草稿在此http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_working%20draft
ianG是block.one的合伙人和顾问，也是EOSIO软件的作者。但是文字和概念是他的，而非block.one正式的或批准的内容。
制作人员。本文花费了Eva Stöwe大量的工作来编辑。还有来自很多人的评论:Dan Larimer, Arthur Doohan, Thomas Cox, Ian Panchèvre, Jeff Daub
本文已于2017年末发表
First Principles
一、最初的原则
It should be possible to justify a design for a system from first principles. Our mission is to build the EOS blockchain for everybody [Grigg, 2017a （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Grigg,%202017a）] . [Larimer, 2017 （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Larimer,%202017）] . In pursuit of the mission, we should be asking questions such as:
Who is everybody?
What do they need?
Can we provide it?
This paper lays down the logic for a governed blockchain from one starting assumption of need - trade. It is our hope that from this point, everything else follows.
最初的原则应该可以为一个系统的设计辩护。我们的任务是为每个人构建EOS区块链[Grigg, 2017a]、[Larimer, 2017]。为了执行任务，我们应该提出以下问题:
每个人都是谁?
他们需要什么?
我们可以提供吗?
本文从需求交易这一初始假设出发，阐述了受治理的区块链的逻辑。我们希望从这一点开始，其他一切都能跟上。
A governed blockchain is built for business. An example of such a business is the Steem system, a social network or blogging environment built on a custom single purpose blockchain. Another example is Bitshares, a decentralised exchange for trading cryptocurrencies. These two businesses are sisters in model and team, but have completely different missions and customers. The existence of these two, so close but yet so different, and their relative solitude as viable and independent business proposals is significant - it suggests several things:
That, business is possible on the blockchain,
That, there is a wide application space between and around the two use cases, and
That, this application space is currently under-utilised by business.
受治理的区块链是为商业级而构建的。此类业务的一个例子是Steem系统，一个建立在自定义单一用途区块链之上的社交网络或博客环境。另一个例子是Bitshares，一个交易加密货币的去中心化交易所。这两家企业在模式和团队上是姐妹企业，但使命和客户群体完全不同。这两家公司的关系紧密却大有不同，它们作为可行的、相对独立的商业先例是非常重要的——它表明了以下几点:
在区块链上做生意是可能的；
在这两个案例之间和周围有一个广泛的应用空间；
这个应用程序空间目前还没有被企业充分利用。
Why is this? It is our thesis that other blockchains are unsuitable for business. And the very lack that businesses face is that other blockchains are not governed. Let’s build up the case for The Governed Blockchain .
这是为什么呢?我们的论点是，其他区块链不适合商业。企业所面临的问题是，其他区块链没有受到监管。让我们为受治理的区块链构建案例。
To Permission or to UnPermission - was that the question?
允许或不允许，这个问题?
Blockchains have been characterised as unpermissioned and permissioned (Swanson, 2015). This divides the space into (a) open entry, software only blockchains for public access and (b) closed off private blockchains, or ‘walled gardens’ with both software and legal provisions. Let’s consider each in turn.
区块链被分为不被允许的和被允许的(Swanson, 2015)。这将空间划分为(a)开放级入口、仅供公众访问的软件区块链和(b)关闭私人级区块链、或既有软件又有法律规定的“围墙花园（walled gardens）”。让我们依次考虑。
(a)The Unpermissioned Blockchain
(a)未被许可的区块链
The original or classical Bitcoin as an Unpermissioned, public blockchain had the disadvantage that with only software-enforced controls, only the things that can be controlled in software will be controlled. Everything else is left uncontrolled.
原始的或经典的比特币作为一种未经许可的、公开的区块链有一个缺点：只有软件强制控制，软件中才能控制的东西才会被控制。其他一切都不受控制。
In effect, this means that there is a relatively stark line between simple and complex: relatively simple things such as payments can be controlled and are controlled because we can code them up. In contrast, complex things such as relying on your counterparty to deliver a swap in a month cannot be so easily controlled.
实际上，这意味着简单和复杂之间有一个相对明了的界限：相对简单的事情，比如支付可以被控制和控制，因为可以用代码创建它们。相比之下，像依赖你的对手方在一个月内进行互换复杂的事情时是不容易控制的。
Hence the seemingly obsessive fixation by the blockchainers on exotic cryptography: multisig, zkSNARKs, ring signatures, Turing-complete smart contracts and other arcania. We must turn the complex into the simple, and without success, unpermissioned blockchains appear exciting but progress so far does not speak clearly or loudly to viable business use cases. The quest continues, even as it has broken many a venture, lost many a fortune and shows little sign of changing that pattern.
因此，在奇异的密码学上，封锁者们似乎执着于此:multisig, zkSNARKs, ring signatures, Turing-complete smart contract和其他arcania。我们必须把复杂的东西变成简单的东西，如果没有成功，未经许可的区块链就会让一些人感到兴奋。但是目前进展来看，并不能清晰对外用可行的商业用例来作为成功范本。这种追求仍在继续，尽管它穿越了很多冒险，失去了许多财富，而且没有显示出任何改变这种模式的迹象。
(b) The Permissioned Blockchain
(b)受许可的区块链
Then, complex business with a use case turns to Swanson’s permissioned ledgers in the hope that once so controlled, people will behave and complex trade will start to roll [Swanson, 2015 （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Swanson,%202015）] . Trade begets revenues, revenues begets profits, and profits beget living - all is good. An alternate position to Swanson’s is the consortium blockchain which envisages that the consensus is controlled by a group, but otherwise the chain claims to be open entry, free to trade [Buterin, 2015 （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Buterin,%202015）] .
然后，带有用例的复杂商业业务转向Swanson受许可的分类账簿，希望一旦受到这样的控制，人们将会行动起来，让复杂的交易开始滚动[Swanson, 2015]。贸易创造收入，收入创造利润，利润创造生活——这样的一切看起来很好。对Swanson的另一种观点是区块链财团，该财团设想共识由一个组织控制，除此之外，该联盟声称是开放的，可以自由交易[Buterin, 2015]。
But permissioned and consortium ledgers face another problem: the person who provides the permissions inevitably owns or controls the chain.
但是被许可的和财团的分类账簿面临着另一个问题：提供许可的人不可避免地拥有或控制了链。
He who permits, extracts. That person that controls the gate seeks to monetise, and adds rules of discrimination to generate pricing opportunities. The owner is also lobbied by other powerful players, and more rules are added to preserve the benefit for the powerful. A further opportunity is that the owner can capture business from users by raising barriers to entry.
他允许提取物（extract）。那个控制把关的人寻求货币化，并增加了歧视规则以创造定价机会。所有者还受到了其他有权势玩家的游说，并增加了更多的规则来保护权贵们的利益。另一个机会是，所有者可以通过提高进入门槛从用户那里获取商业业务。
Thus the cost rises for all participants, and these chains eventually become dominated by a group of powerful players - cartels following the economic theory if not the political viewpoint. Hence, the term is likely wrong: both permissioned and consortium chains will become private or closed blockchains given enough time and money.
因此，所有参与者的成本都会上升，而这些链上最终会被一群强大的参与者所控制——如果不是出于政治观点，也会遵循经济理论的卡特尔现象（译者注：垄断利益集团）。因此，这一术语很可能是错误的：受许可和联合链会因为给予足够的时间和金钱，成为私人的或封闭的区块链。
The permissioned blockchain is a closed, private chain.
经过许可的区块链是一个封闭的私人链。
Free agents see these blockchains as costly. Costs rise, so much so that Internet entrepreneurs do not like permissioned ledgers. The thesis of inevitable cartelisation suggests that the rational entrepreneur knows that the power of the center will inevitably be turned against them, and they conclude it isn’t worth their time and money. The money and effort they invest in the chain has low ROI (“return on investment”), so low it is expected to be negative returns.
自由代理者认为这些区块链代价高昂。成本上升，以至于互联网企业家不喜欢被许可的分类账簿。不可避免的卡特尔的理论表明，理性的企业家知道，中心化的力量不可避免地会对他们不利，他们认为这是不值得花时间和金钱的，因此在链上投资的资金和努力会有低的投资回报率(“投资回报”)，低到预期的负回报。
Indeed, perhaps, to some, the whole point of the blockchain is that there isn’t an owner, there isn’t a more powerful party, there isn’t a wizard behind the curtain, a central banker behind the coins, a core behind the code. I say, perhaps that is the point, because the design of the blockchain is as it is, the point is as much what we ascribe to it and what we extract from it as any claimed starting position that spawned the first blockchain.
事实上，对一些人来说，区块链的全部意义在于，没有一个是真正意义上的所有者，没有一个更强大的一方，幕后没有巫师，币的背后没有央行行长，代码背后没有核心利益所有者。所以我说，也许这就是重点，因为区块链的设计就是这样的，重点是我们赋予它的和我们从它中提取出来的东西，就像任何声称产生第一个区块链的起始位置一样。
More importantly, what is perhaps becoming clearer is this: everyone can probably agree with the principle that we automate everything that is simple to automate. Whereas, between the two camps either side of the permissioning fence, there is little or no agreement as to what to do with the space of complexity that lies above the line of simplicity.
更重要的是，可能越来越清楚：每个人都可能同意“我们将一切简单自动化”的原则。然而，在两个阵营中，在许可的围栏的两边，几乎没有或没有达成一致的协议，在简单的这条线之上复杂性的空间应该如何处理。
Between Anarchy and The Leviathan
在无政府状态和利维坦之间
As Charles Evans suggests, we are caught between the Anarchy of the unpermissioned chain and The Leviathan of the permissioned alternative [Evans, 2017 （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Evans,%202017）] . This is an uncomfortable choice for the small business owner who is asked to invest substantial capital in what amounts to an unreliable future. To analyse our choices, we must go back to the first principles. We must ask what business is trying to do.
译者注：利维坦
正如Charles Evans所言，我们夹在不受约束的链的无政府状态，和被许可的另类选择——利维坦之间(Evans, 2017)。这对小企业主来说是一个不舒服的选择，他们被要求在一个不可靠的未来投入大量的资金。为了分析我们的选择，我们必须回到最初的原则。我们必须问一下企业在做什么。
II. What does business do?
二、商业业务是做什么的?
Trade is the beginning and the end
贸易是开始，也是结束
If you are a global corporation, finance theory tells us that your best strategy is generally to do what your business already does, until you die. If you are a person with wealth, a high net worth individual, the efficient market hypothesis predicts that your best strategy is to buy the market index, or in today’s lingo, to hodl.
如果你是一家全球性的公司，金融理论告诉我们，你最好的策略通常是做你的公司已经在做的事情，直到你死去才停下来。如果你是一个拥有财富的人，一个高净值个人，有效市场假说预测你的最佳策略是购买市场指数，或者在今天流行的话是hodl。
For the rest of us, for the vast majority of humanity, we need to do business to survive. Trade with real goods and services is the beginning and the end of our life strategy.
对我们其他人来说，对绝大多数人来说，我们需要不断做交易才能生存。我们人生战略的起点和终点都不断在与真正的商品和服务进行贸易。
We put it then as axiomatic that we should build a blockchain not for payments, not for one customer or another, not for banks or bloggers or day traders or gamers or silk roaders or hodlers. Not to please big or small blockers or big or small government.
我们把它作为一个原则，我们应该建立一个区块链，而不是为了支付，不是为一个客户或另一个客户，不是为银行或博客，或日交易者、游戏者、丝绸之路者或持有者（hodler）。不是为了取悦不同的阻碍者，或者取悦不同的政府。
We should build the blockchain for trade, for business, for all of you.
我们应该为贸易、商业和你们每一个人建立区块链。
We live in complexity
我们生活在一个复杂的环境
Business is by its nature complex. As we hinted above, some trade is simple, homogenised, and automated - payments is an exemplary of that in finance. A payment system works at massive scale, is heavily automated and extremely cheap. Such economies at massive scale result in large slow-moving centralised organisations, which also makes them subject to capture and domination by large players. Inevitably: Large banks, large governments, large mining pools.
商业的本质是复杂的。正如我们以上所提及，一些贸易是简单的，同质化的，而自动支付是金融领域的典范。支付系统规模庞大，自动化程度高，成本极低。这样的经济规模巨大，导致了大规模的缓慢移动的中心化组织，这也使得它们受到大型企业的占领和控制。不可避免的是：雄厚的银行、强大的政府、巨大的矿池。
This is the commoditisation argument - the more simple the trade, the more it is automatable, the more subject to scale, and eventual capture. The takeaway here being that such simple, automatable business is not for us - not for the small players, not for the vast majority, not for the diaspora of small traders. We are competed out, we are excluded. We small traders are squeezed out of simple, scalable trade, but what is left is complex trade. We make our livelihood in that messy chaos where our minds & bodies are our capital, and nobody can squeeze us out of our own minds.
这就是商品化的理由——交易越简单，就越容易实现自动化，越容易规模化，最终取得成功。这里的结论是，这种简单的、可自动化的商业业务不适合我们——这不是为了小公司，也不是为绝大多数人，不是为小买卖的商人。我们被淘汰了，我们被排除在外。我们这些小商人被从简单的、可伸缩的贸易中挤出来，剩下的是复杂的贸易。我们在混乱中谋生，而不被排挤在外的，只有我们自己的思想。我们的思想和身体是我们的资本。
We should therefore build the blockchain for the complex trade.
因此，我们应该为复杂的贸易构建区块链。
Things that go bump in the middle of the night
那些在半夜里可能会爆炸的东西
But with complexity comes errors. We make our money on making the complex happen reliably but errors are the continual reminder: that, fundamentally, what we do is both complex and complicated. If there were no errors, life would be simple. Everything would be automated, the geeks would have won, and we’d be all out of a job! If our customer perceives no risk of errors, they would not pay us a premium for reliability.
伴随复杂性的是错误。我们赚钱是为了让复杂的事情在预计之中发生，但错误会不断的提醒：从根本上说，我们所做的事情是复杂难懂的。如果没有错误，生活将会变得简单。一切都会自动化，极客们会赢得这场争夺赛，而我们普通人会失业。如果我们的客户接受这样的错误没有风险，他们就不会为我们的可靠性支付额外的费用。
It is small trader’s lot to live complex, error-filled lives. We and our errors are yin and yang. Perversely, we have more potential to make more money if our trade is rich with risk. Competition forces us to reduce our rate of error, but profitability incentivises us to keep a healthy ratio of complexity in our trade. As our business becomes more reliable, we compete on a different level - either we seek out more of our customers’ risks to resolve, or we seek to lock our customers in by other methods [Porter, 1979 （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Porter,%201979）] .
过着复杂、充满错误的生活是小商人的命运。我们和我们的错误常常是阴和阳的两面。反常的是，如果我们的交易充满的风险越高，在这笔交易中就越有赚大钱的可能。竞争迫使我们降低我们错误的发生率，但盈利能力激励我们在交易中保持健康的比率。随着业务变得更加可靠，我们将会在不同的层面上竞争——要么帮更多客户风险来寻求风险解决方案，要么试图通过其他方法让我们的客户保持长期关系[Porter, 1979]。
Error, be gone!
错误不见了!
As errors are, they are mostly predictable in class, but unpredictable in the event. Some of our known blockchain risks are, briefly:
· "Fat fingers,"
· "We don’t need that library...," failure of smart contracts, re-direction of funds
· thefts of capital,
· breaches of contract by individuals
· breakages and lock-outs, lost keys, discarded drives
· loss or theft of customer data, breaches of privacy, GDPR, regulatory exposure
· Collapse of customer faith…
· Imitations, phishing, deceptive masquerading as others, sybils
· forks, splitting of currencies, confusion as to one true chain, doppelganger contracts
· censorship, unacceptable data, harassment, SWATing, extortion
错误经常在理论可以预测，但在实际事件中不可预测的。我们已知的区块链风险有:
·“胖手指”
·“我们不需要那个图书馆……”智能合约的失效，资金的重新流向
·资本盗窃,
·个人在合约中违约
·破损、锁定、丢失私钥，丢弃的驱动硬盘
·丢失或盗窃客户数据、侵犯隐私、GDPR、监管曝光
·客户信心崩溃……
·模仿、钓鱼、伪装成他人的欺骗、 sybils攻击
·分叉、货币分叉、对“真链”的混淆、双重合约
·审查、不可接受的数据、骚扰、背叛、勒索
That’s for the business of blockchain, and ordinary business is no stranger to risk on or off the chain - there are so many threats and attacks that once listed out, it feels as though no business should survive.
这是区块链的业务，普通商业业务在链上或链下的风险并不陌生——有太多的威胁和攻击，一旦列出，就感觉没有任何业务可以继续生存下去。
But we do. How do we survive? To keep our errors under control, businesses do risk analysis, which informs us on how to accept some risks, mitigate others, and change our very business to deal with yet others.
但是我们会继续做。那我们怎么生存？为了控制错误的发生，企业做风险分析，这告诉我们如何去接受一些风险，减少其他风险，并改变我们的业务来处理其他的问题。
There are more clever ways to deal with the future than voodoo - risk management using probability, diversification, mitigation, actuarial science and all that good stuff. Others can get deep into risk analysis, here I shall just claim that while our regular small business person cannot predict the future, she can learn to live with the everyday stress another day in business brings: the tiny chance that today, the unexpected becomes harsh fact. She intuitively prices higher for greater risk, and lower for easy deals. She detects those trades that can break the business, and accepts those that deliver profit worthy of the risk. In short, she trades on the risk of the deal, and she does not risk the business more than any trade merits.
有比巫术更聪明的方法来应对未来——利用概率、多样化、缓解、精算科学和所有这些好东西进行风险管理。其他人可以深入到风险分析中去，在这里我只想说，虽然我们的普通小商人不能预测未来，但她可以学会如何面对商业中另一天所带来的日常压力：今天的微小机会，意想不到的事情变成了残酷的事实。她凭直觉认为，风险越大，价格就越高，而简单交易的价格就越低。她发现那些可以破坏生意的交易，并接受那些值得冒险的利润。简而言之，她是在交易的风险上进行交易的，而且她的风险并不比任何交易价值更大。
The business owner seems to survive - either she can do risk analysis on her individual trades in her head better than we can write it down on paper, and her mitigations against risks are working, or she’s living her life in a never-ending lottery.
这位企业主似乎能够生存下来——要么她能在头脑中对她的个人交易进行风险分析，而不是我们能在纸上写下来；要么她对风险的缓解正在发挥作用，要么她的生活就像一场没完没了的彩票。
Risk Analysis
风险分析
Which tells us what about risk? Let’s look at one of the tools used for formal risk analysis, a risk matrix (Wikipedia “Risk matrix”).[Wikipedia （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Wikipedia）] . This tool measures each risk of error or failure by severity and by probability, and then divides them into three zones - acceptable, as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), and not acceptable.
这告诉我们什么是风险。让我们来看看一个用于正式风险分析的工具，一个风险矩阵(Wikipedia可查询“风险矩阵（Risk matrix）”)。该工具通过严重程度和概率来度量每一个错误或失败的风险，然后将它们分为三个区域——可接受的、合理可行的最低限度(ALARP)和不可接受的。
In a micro sense the blockchain industry has the right idea - to attack the errors, to reduce the risks. If we can remove or reduce some or all of the errors then surely everyone is better off? But in some high level or strategic sense, the blockchain geeks are missing the big picture of the risks in several fundamental ways:
从微观上讲，区块链行业的想法是正确的——攻击错误，降低风险。如果我们能够消除或减少一些或所有的错误，那么每个人一定会变得更好吗？从某些高层次或战略意义上来看，区块链极客们在几个基本方面忽略了风险的整体情况:
- Technocrats with no skin in the game are generally biased to elegant system properties. Consequences include overemphasis by computer scientists on pure technical solutions such as exotic cryptography and formal provability, and obsession by bureaucrats on compliance empires. Yet, making systems correct or safe at the expense of the user is not an answer, as security is only of the user, not of the system. Arguably, a focus on the security of the blockchain by the geeks has led to more errors and higher risk for the average user, as compared to say banks and their reliable online systems.
1、在游戏中没有皮肤的技术专家通常偏向于优雅的系统属性。其后果包括:计算机科学家过分强调纯技术解决方案，如奇异的密码学和正式的可验证性；官僚们沉迷于合规帝国的构建。然而，以牺牲用户为代价使系统正确或安全不是我们想要寻找的答案，因为安全性只属于用户，而不属于系统。可以这么说，与银行及其可靠的在线系统相比，极客们对区块链安全性的关注给普通用户带来了更多的错误和更高的风险。
- On the other side of the same coin, the technocrats are generally biased against users. For example, a frequent complaint in security circles is that a system is unusable by ordinary users yet the designers assert it is secure. This century-old security phenomena, known as Kherckhoffs’ 6th principle, is that if the secure system is bypassed or ignored for unusability, it reduces security by pushing users to weak methods [Kerckhoffs, 1883 （http://iang.org/papers/the_governed_blockchain.html#ref_Kerckhoffs,%201883）]. The same mundane error results in regulatory process: the desire for a secured financial system shuts out average users and pushes them to unsafe systems such as cryptocurrencies. Only a system that is used is capable of securing the user.
2、另一方面，技术专家通常对用户有偏见。例如，在安全领域，常见的抱怨是一个系统不能被普通用户使用，但是设计者声称它是安全的。这个有百年历史的安全现象，被称为Kherckhoffs第六原则，如果安全系统由于不可用性而被忽略，它会用降低用户到“弱方法（weak methods）”来降低安全性[kerckhoff, 1883]。同样常见的错误导致了监管过程的必要性：对安全金融系统的渴望将普通用户拒之门外，而这些人将会走向加密货币不安全系统的路上。只有使用的系统才能保护用户的安全。
- IT designs will generally attack the errors of highest probability - the ones that happen every day, those to the right of the chart above. This is good tactics because their frequency helps us to know more about them, and their cost over time becomes calculable and consistent. Why waste time chasing our tails on stuff that never happens?
3、它通常会攻击最容易出错的地方——那些每天发生的错误，就像在上面图表右边的错误。这是一个很好的策略——攻击的频率可以让我们对它们有更多的了解，并且随着时间的推移，它们的成本是可以计算和找到相对稳定值的。为什么要把时间浪费在那些从未发生过的事情上呢?
- But this leaves us vulnerable to the errors on the upper left hand side! Indeed, our focus on correcting the errors we can see, and our propensity to go out and find more risky business results in a rise in risk on the left hand side. Remember, we live for errors! The forces of competition may not make our risks go down, instead, risks typically bounce around a bit until we find a new profitability, a new complexity, a new stability. And a new vulnerability to risk.
4、但这让我们容易受到左上角的错误的影响！实际上，我们专注于纠正我们所能看到的错误，我们倾向于去发现风险更高的业务，这导致了上图左边风险的增加。要记住，我们是为错误而活！竞争可能不会降低我们的风险，相反，风险通常直到发现新的盈利点会反弹一点，新的复杂性，新的稳定性，以及新的风险脆弱性。
The upper left hand side is known as black swan risk - incredibly unlikely in the small, but if we wait long enough it’s guaranteed to happen. And when it does, such as happened to the financial system in 2008, we're doomed. In finance they call it turkey risk - the risk that tomorrow is Christmas Day is very low, so turkeys believe Christmas Day never comes.
左上方被称为黑天鹅风险——在小范围内不太可能发生，但如果我们等待的时间足够长，它一定会发生。当它发生时，就像2008年金融系统发生的那样——注定会失败。在金融领域他们称之为“火鸡风险”——明天是圣诞节的风险很低，而火鸡相信圣诞节永远不会到来。
For responsible business, for users, for our own peace of mind, we need to deal with the unlikely disasters that will wipe us out. We need to deal with our inner black swan.
对于负责任的企业，对于用户，为了我们内心的平静，我们需要处理那些不可能的灾难，这些灾难将会把我们消灭。我们需要处理自己内心的黑天鹅。
Black Swans
黑天鹅
Where do we find the fabled black swan? In three places: in the backwaters of Western Australia, in the risky writings of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, and on the blockchain:
我们在哪里可以找到传说中的黑天鹅？在三个地方:在西澳大利亚的回水里，在纳西姆·尼古拉斯·塔勒布的风险著作中，以及在区块链里:
2011
June 500,000 BTC stolen from Jeb McCaleb’s Mt.Gox auditing account
2013
Bitcoin hard fork from bug in code, rapidly rolled back by core & miners
2013
October 179,342 BTC seized by US agents from ‘SilkRoad’ darknet market
2014
650,000 BTC $323mm stolen from Mt.Gox, handling 80% of BTC trading
2015
April The Collapse of the Bitcoin Foundation
2016
June The DAO - 3.6mm Ether being about $50mm stolen, then fork of Ethereum
2016
August 120,000 = $72mm hacked from Bitfinex exchange
2017
July Bitcoin forked
2017
September China regulates ICOs, orders funds to be reversed
2017
October Ethereum multisig wallets in Parity hit by accidental freeze
2017
November Bitfinex’s Tether dollar unit had $30m reserves stolen
2018
watch this space...
These are just some highlights, but you can see where we are going: disasters on the blockchain are too frequent even to be called black swans.
这些只其中一些大事件，但是你可以看到我们所处的地方：区块链上的灾难太频繁了，甚至不能称之为黑天鹅。
The Conundrum
难题
In the face of the Black Swan, what is the entrepreneur to do? The entrepreneur is very adept at handling small, profitable errors, but the business or market collapsing Black Swan is another matter entirely.
面对“黑天鹅”事件，企业家该怎么办？企业家非常善于处理小型的、有利可图的错误，但商业或市场的崩溃完全是另一回事。
The Entrepreneur invests heavily into his or her business: Programmers, business development, accounting and legal expertise, web development, and a movie's worth of supporting actors. All of these people cost money; an entrepreneur probably needs to find about a million bucks to get the attention of these supporters. You can pick your own number from your own experience, one that could be higher, or lower. But it is going to be a significant and painful number.
企业家在他或她的业务上投入了大量资金：程序员、业务开发、会计和法律专业知识、web开发，以及电影中值得支持的演员。所有这些人都在花钱；一个企业家可能需要大约一百万美元来吸引这些支持者的注意。你可以从经验中选择这个可高可低的数字，而这将是一个重要而痛苦的数字。
Further - opportunity costs are very fierce in the entrepreneurial world. As an entrepreneur, every one of your people faces a choice: to work at a good job at a good firm and earn steady salary, or take on a speculative, low paid, idealistic path to build what could be a fantastic future, but probably won’t be. Only one of five startups make the big time, and that’s after they’ve made it to Venture Capital money.
在企业家的世界里，机会成本非常高。作为一名企业家都面临着一个选择：在一家好公司里做一份好工作，挣一份稳定的薪水，或者走上一条投机的、低薪的、理想主义的道路，去建设一个可能美好的未来，但也很可能不会。五家创业公司中只有一家能赚到大钱，那是在他们获得风投资金之后。
Whatever number we agree on, the entrepreneur and her team are investing a serious amount of value. The question for blockchain then is,
will the entrepreneur invest their own capital into blockchain?
不管我们同意多少，这位企业家和她的团队都在花费大量有价值的东西。区块链的问题是：
企业家是否会将自己的资金投入到区块链呢?
This question needs to be put against the risks of blockchain. Let’s leave aside the ‘internal’ investor who is already committed to blockchain, can invest in fixing some part of the infrastructure, and can generate internal investment from hodling and ICOs. Let’s consider the external person building a business for users and bringing in external capital. Who, as we’ve suggested above is very adept at recognising risks, and is well able to process the black swan when it swims past.
这个问题需要针对区块链的风险做出提问。让我们暂且不谈那些已经致力于区块链的“内部”投资者，他们可以投资修复部分基础设施，也可以通过和ICO捆绑产生内部投资。让我们考虑外部人员为用户建立商业业务并引入外部资本。正如我们上面所提到的，某些人非常善于识别风险，并且能够妥善处理黑天鹅事件。
What does this external, experienced business person think of unacceptable risks? They are too frequent on the blockchain. I suggest to you:
the sane, rational calculating business person does not invest in such uncertainty.
For the business person to come in, rationally, we need to find another way. Business people won’t accept the black swans, just because. Therefore,
We are building the blockchain to solve the black swan.
这些外部的、有经验的商人会怎么看待不可接受的风险？他们在区块链上太频繁了。我建议你:
理智且理性的商业人士不会投资于这种不确定性。
要让商人理性地进来，我们需要找到另一种方式。商业人士不会接受“黑天鹅”。因此,
我们正在构建区块链来解决黑天鹅问题。
Figure X. Zero dapps are scaling
（第一部分结束）
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