Article II - v0.3.0 Draft EOS.IO Constitution - Property Rights
宪法中，在关于产权的讨论中，用户mao提出以下问题：
The value part of property right is completely good. The discussion part is controversial especially on dealing with Bona Fide Purchaser over the property right. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser [...]
I suggest unless we want to make the BFP is debatable, I have the position to let the BPF prevail in the system.
产权的价值部分是完全对的。 在讨论部分上，尤其是在处理善意买方对产权问题上存在争议。 参考：https：//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser [...]
我建议，除非我们认为让BFP是值得商榷的，否则我有权让BPF在系统中占上风。
Thomas 专门针对此问题进行如下回复：
Great points. The Arbitrators will want to see clear rules they can enforce, so we need to ask ourselves what rules we want to agree to.
I'm inclined to favor the Nemo Dat rule, which allows for some respect for the BFP, but requires buyers to both check for title and register new title (as I understand it).
I'm curious how others feel about this important aspect of property rights. In particular, Nemo Dat doesn't allow a person who lost currency to reclaim that currency, or not easily. That could feel scary to someone who was hoping our blockchain's rules would allow easy or universal reclaiming of stolen property...
非常好的观点。 仲裁员希望看到他们可以执行的明确规则，所以我们需要问自己什么是我们想要同意的规则。
我倾向于赞成Nemo Dat规则，它允许对BFP给予某种尊重，但要求买家检查title并注册新title（据我了解）。
我很好奇别人对产权这个重要方面的看法。 特别是，Nemo Dat不允许丢失货币的人重新使用该货币，或者说很难再使用这些丢失的货币。 对于希望我们所制定的区块链规则允许简单地或普遍地回收被盗财产的人来说，这可能会让人感到不安。
咱们联盟的HaveyMeng提出的一票多投的问题获得热烈讨论，并得到Thomas认真回复
这里是连接：https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/664/problems-of-30-votes-per-eos#latest
Thomas回复认为1:1和1:30没有区别。
