【双语】关于近期EOS社区冻结问题账户仲裁案，华语社区的疑问及担忧收集及国外社区回复-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：关于最近冻结27个账户的仲裁案件，中国社区有不同的声音，尤其是那些准备积极参与全球治理的社区。我们希望中国社区的观点和问题能够被海外听到，也希望能够听到海外社区的声音。
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：个人来说我认为冻结账户的决定是可以理解的，但是这只是我个人的角度，可能存在瑕疵。因此我把中文社区关于这个话题的正方和反方观点都收集了起来。在翻译过程中我会尽量不扭曲说话人的原意。
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:
郭达峰：这几天正在激烈讨论的是这些账号调查出是受害者的证据是什么，ECAF目前并没有提供。持币者很多都很担忧。
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.
药思齐-仲裁候选人：如果有提供证据这个就很合理，主要不知道目前ECAF不提供证据的原因，有无可能是考虑保护受害者的隐私？
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?
赵余：大家要的应该cryptographic evidence，比如对应的 eth 签名的 transaction。如果连 cryptographic evidence 都不提供就要加黑名单，就太夸张了。至于 cryptographic evidence 让受害者暴露信息，这是必要的代价，公开的证据必须要有。
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-仲裁候选人：ECAF应该给出关于这些证据 如果这些受害者不愿意将其广开 ECAF应该出一份公告来讲明这个事情 具体是什么理由将这些账户加入黑名单给社区一个解释。
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：封账号这事的逻辑基础是什么？我能证明我曾经拥有这个私钥（比如用eth账号证明）？那请问如何证明eth账号没被盗？以及如果我线下购买私钥是否被允许？如果允许，那么我一样会被卖家封账号。这里面的基础在于如何确认一个账号的归属，这点上ecaf是模糊的。
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:
张振-仲裁候选人：紧急措施本来就是紧急的，初步理由人家也给了呀。待事情处理完了，事后判断紧急仲裁令是否发出的适宜，再进行奖惩，这就是正当程序。如果事后发现措施不对，甚至造成了损失，依据行政法或者相关条例进行赔偿。我觉得现在的问题就是，一些BP不信任现在的ECAF ，甚至不承认他们的合法地位。但是你既然使用了EOS 的账户，就说明你已经同意了承认了EOSConstitution。而constitution本身就已开始规定了仲裁有权力做这些事情。
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.
包汉鸣-仲裁候选人：一个是大部分人认同的规则，需不需要牺牲掉那小部分的人？如果牺牲掉小部分人能够使得规则能够执行，那这会不会导致之后出现多数人的暴力？但一直考虑小部分人的意见，那这个规则什么时候才能执行？
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?
国外社区热心网友Samupaha回复：
感谢你写下这些！我不是ECAF成员，但我会尝试给些回答。首先我们要理解所谓仲裁即是双方或多方之间的争议解决。例如Alice和Bob关于一些代笔到底该归谁产生了分歧，他们同意重裁员Clark来解决这个争议，所以通常来讲公众是没有必要知道这个争议的内容的。如果Alice和Bob自愿同意Clark作为案子的仲裁员，他们就会尊重Clark做出的仲裁，所以整个过程其实并不需要公众的参与。
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，争议的某一方是未知的。例如目前的案子，我不认为嫌疑黑客会联系ECAF，且黑客手里有私钥，所以他完全可以讲一个自己版本的故事，并尝试证明那些账户其实没有被黑，反而是那些提出仲裁申请的人在尝试盗取账户。
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.
区块链的可溯源性让人们更容易识别作恶者。这条也适用于仲裁员。如果他们做出了恶意裁决，受害者可以去找到另一个仲裁员开启一个新案子。新仲裁员可以检查这个案子，如果存在失误，他可以做出和上一位仲裁员相反的裁决。切记我们的系统不是为了惩罚犯错的人，而是为了找到一个把事情纠正的方法。如果仲裁员犯错了，我们后续是可以纠正的。
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.
虽然通常来说公众并不需要参与仲裁案件，但是在这个案例中公众的参与是可以理解的。这些都是主网启动时就有的创世账户，这些账户已经是整个社区的一部分，所以在这个案例中公众还是最好能够知道这些账户是否被黑客控制。所以个人来讲，我同意仲裁员应该提供更多信息，例如以太账户所有权的cryptographic evidence（加密证据）。另外一个公众参与到这个案例中的原因是，争议的其中一方是未知的。如果有相关人不回应仲裁员手头的案子，这可能说明他不知道这事，所以这个时候让公众参与发声，以确保不会有人因为不知情而丢失财产，这是好事情。搞出些动静有利于帮助未知争议方意识到自己和案子有关。
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.
确实ECAF的沟通做的还不够好，但是这个系统还每场年轻，很多流程设计还不够精密。这个是个动态过程，所以所有的反馈都是欢迎的。他们也在尽最大努力去成为一个可信的组织。公众帮助ECAF的最佳方式是提供建设性批评，告诉他们如何才能做得更好。但需要大家记住这是需要花时间的，还有很多事情要做。
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.
中文社区观点：封账号这事的逻辑基础是什么？我能证明我曾经拥有这个私钥（比如用eth账号证明）？那请问如何证明eth账号没被盗？以及如果我线下购买私钥是否被允许？如果允许，那么我一样会被卖家封账号。这里面的基础在于如何确认一个账号的归属，这点上ecaf是模糊的。
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.
回复：在大部分情况下这个都不容易，就像在现实世界中，不可能阻止所有的犯罪，抓住所有的罪犯。仲裁者对此是心知肚明的，所以会要求所有的仲裁申请都提供明确证据。如果没有明确证据，ECAF是无能为力的。
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.
如果你线下购买账户，你可以通过很多方式降低潜在风险。你可以要求卖家给区块链发送信息，例如“今天这个账户被卖给谁谁谁”。EOS是基于自愿合约的（voluntary contract，如果翻译有误还请斧正），所以你应该确保能够证明有这么个合约。如果是纯线下的，你可以用老式的纸质合约。账户越容易受到威胁，越应该收集足够的证据证明合约的有效。卖家可以用其他的可信方式表明合约是自愿并且有共识的，例如用基于密钥的账户对其签名，又或者双方握手合影然后把照片放到 链上。有很多方式证明一个合约，我觉得我们以后会看到关于“合约证明”的创新，因为这个对EOS生态来说太核心了。
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.