【翻译|Ian】具有DPOS的EOS很难因GFW攻击而被影响
原创： 译：Yvonne
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Yvonne。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://steemit.com/eos/@iang/eos-with-dpos-is-immune-to-the-gfw-attack-because-it-is-more-dece

[color=]"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
[color=]）！

具有DPOS的EOS很难因GFW攻击而被影响，因其更具去中心化特点

作者：Ian Grigg

翻译：Yvonne

Rumours are continuing to circulate that China is going to regulate all crypto. The rumours include closing down mining and chopping off Bitcoin itself in the great fire wall (GFW) that controls the in/out pipes for the Internet. However, one letter circulated that claims all this appears to be a fake, but it's scared many nonetheless.
有传言说中国将对所有的数字货币进行监管。这些传言除了包括关闭挖矿，还包括在控制互联网输入/输出管道的超级防火墙（GFW）中切断比特币本身。然而，一个流传更广的信息声称所有这些信息看起来都是假的，但它还是让许多人感到害怕。
Can they shut down the mining? Probably, and to much larger extent than the other governments. The reasons are twofold - censorship is a normal part of life there, and the regulations are much stricter, so (1) censorship works. If you couple this to the fact that the mining companies are big and consume a lot of resource, then we can see them as obvious - (2) big hash factories are hard to hide. Therefore, it is fairly likely that an instruction to cease & desist will be taken seriously. And voluntarily. And there won't be any mucking around with secret nets or pigeon IP or ham radio.

编者注

他们真的能关闭挖矿吗?很可能，且相较其他国家来说可能性更大。原因在于存在双重审核制度，似乎也成为生活的组成部分，而且还有更加严格的法律法规，因此（1）审查工作。如果你把这个放到挖矿公司上，它将会是意见很严重且需要损耗大量资源，于是我们可以看到这些的确是显而易见的 - （2）大型哈希工厂很难隐藏。因此，停止指示很可能会被认真对待，而且是自愿的，同时不会再存在秘网、鸽子IP及火腿收音机。        

So, the potential attack on Bitcoin and Ethereum is plausible, notwithstanding the likely fake news status of it right now. The ramifications are that about 80% of the mining hashpower would be sliced off, as well as Bitcoin use being isolated within the country. One could even see a potential for Bitcoin to fork into in-country and ex-country chains, something that would align with PRC interests but maybe not with anyone else.
因此，对比特币和以太坊的潜在攻击分析是合理的，尽管对于比特币而言绝大多数情况下都是虚假新闻。其后果是，大约80%的挖矿哈希将会被割裂，同时，例如比特币这样的数字货币在国内也被孤立。人们甚至可以看到比特币有可能进入国内和国外的连锁店，这符合中国的利益，但可能与其他任何人无关。一种可能发生的情况是分叉为“国内”和“国外”两条链，某种程度上符合中国的利益但却于其他人都不相关。
Curiously, and arguably intentionally, DPOS is more or less immune to this attack. The reasons are simply that (a) DPOS is far more decentralised than mining and (b) DPOS responds to the shock of country regulation quickly and without losing any efficacy.
奇怪的是，正如经过论证可证明的有意的说，DPOS或多或少地对这种攻击免疫。原因很简单：（a）DPOS比挖矿更加去中心化;（b）DPOS可迅速应对国家监管的冲击，却而不会失去任何效力。
Mining is more centralised because the forces of centralisation (or economies of scale) on it are much stronger: Bitcoin and Ethereum mining need huge amounts of electricity. As outlined in an old paper (Güring & Grigg 2011), hashing goes to where the electricity is cheapest. Which currently is in places like Inner Mongolia for various reasons that aren't going away. Further, it's not enough to have a few boxes and great net, you have to be a big warehouse. Which means we know where they all are, and they can't move, easily. Lots of electricity, lots of boxes, lots of money, lots of workers: These are highly centralised installations.
挖矿更集中因为中心化（或规模经济）的力量更强：比特币和以太坊挖矿需要大量的电力。正如一篇旧论文（Güring＆Grigg 2011）所述，哈希只会去那些电力最便宜的地方，所以目前像在内蒙古的地方出于各种原因还没有会消失。此外，仅仅有几个盒子和网络是不够的，你必须得有一个大仓库。这意味着我们就会知道它的位置所在，并且它们不能轻易移动。大量的电力，大量的箱子，大量的资金，大量的工人：这些是高度集中的设施。
In contrast, the resources used in DPOS are much lighter. They aren't as subject to local circumstances, and are much more easily moved. Basically, each block producer needs a few big boxes with good net. Which exists in most countries, there are even hobby/volunteer sites like Funkfueur in Vienna that would fit the bill, and many countries deliver real fast net to the home with fibre which would likely be enough for a year or two.
相比之下，DPOS使用的资源要轻得多。他们不受当地环境的影响，而且更容易实现迁移。基本上，每一个区块生产者都需要一些网络良好的大盒子。在大多数国家都存在，甚至像维也纳的Funkfueur这样的业余爱好/志愿者网站也能满足这一要求，许多国家用光纤为家庭提供真正的快速网络，这也可足够维持一至两年了。
More, the producers can be re-appointed by the community within the space of a round - approximately a minute. So the moment a large country decides to act, the community can respond as and when it is bothered - by voting to replace the suspect nodes with others ex-country. This can be done on rumour, or we can wait until those nodes drop off, and then repair the network knowing where to repair.
此外，生产者可被社区在每一新的轮次重新任命——时间大约为一分钟。因此，在一个大国决定采取行动的时候，社区可以在它被困扰时作出反应 -——通过投票将其他可疑节点切换至该国之外。这些可在传闻之中完成，或者我们可以等到这些节点停止，然后修复那些需要修复的网络。
All this with zero change to the effective block production, and the risk to that production, because there is a ready pool of waiting block producers. Whereas a successful China attack will result in an 80% drop in hashrate around the world and thus the potential for a fork.
所有这些对于区块生产和生产风险都没能做出有效改变，因为有一个现成池在等待区块生产者。鉴于中国一次成功的攻击将导致全球范围内的算力下降80%，从而可能产生一次分叉出现。
That’s the theory - how do the numbers stack up? If we choose 75% as a suitable indicator of effective decentralisation, we can eyeball the chart (above) and see that 8 mining pools do 75% of all hashing for Bitcoin. Ethereum (below) is even worse at 5!
这就是理论 - 那么数字是如何堆积的呢？如果我们选择75％作为有效去中心化的的有效指标，我们可以看一下图表（上图）并看到8个采矿池占比特币所有矿池的75％。以太坊（下图）则更为糟糕仅有5个！
Meanwhile, DPOS is mathematical as the blocks are distributed 1 per round across 21 producers, each round, and then shuffled. Then, 75% of 21 producers is … 16, rounded up, as it was with the others.
与此同时，DPOS是经过数学分析而得的，每一轮每个区块在21个生产者之间分配1个，之后再进行洗牌。那么，21个生产者中的75％四舍五入之后是...... 16，于其他人也是一样。
Hence, DPOS is far more decentralised than either Bitcoin or Ethereum, by a factor of 2 or 3 if the 75% metric is any guide. The fact that there are many thousands of nodes in a Bitcoin or Ethereum blockchain isn't relevant if the chain is dominated by only a small number of pools, and those pools exist in known, accounted-for places vulnerable to a forking attack. Like China. Like 80%.
因此，DPOS要比比特币或以太坊的去中心化程度高得多，如果以75%为基准的话，DPOS的去中心化程度要高出两到三倍。事实上比特币或以太坊的区块链中有数千个节点，如果该链仅由少量矿池进行主导，这些矿池则成为已知，同时也展示出易受分叉攻击的地方。比如中国、比如80%。

本文图片来源于英文原文