Generalized platforms must improve at making infinite decisions, whereas bitcoin must improve at making one decision. That's the idea, right?
Security has a concept called attack surface: the more kinds of exposures, the greater the attack surface. Similarly we can think of governance as having an argument surface: the more kinds of decisions there are to argue over, the less functional the institution will be.
-
-
-
It's referring to the decisions that are specifically made by humans not by algorithm (including decisions to override algorithm decisions).
-
And including decisions about what the algorithm(s) should be. The number of such decisions, and thus their argument surface, is (or can be made to be) vastly smaller than the number of decisions the resulting algorithms make, thus radically reducing the argument surface.
-
Important caveat is that when human decisions are used as data input to an algorithm, that can potentially restore the greatly larger argument surface, i.e. people putting great efforts into gaming those inputs (arguably what is going on with Twitter shadow-banning).
-
So we want the input be as simple and discrete as flipping a switch (nothing to reverse engineer or game), ie computing a nonce. But can the problem not pop out into the hardware world, eg controlling hardware supply or cheap energy access?
-
Sadly, nothing in this life is completely trustless. But there's plenty of room for improvement.
-
As long as we run commonplace hardware it seems nearly uncrackable. That is, no actor could destroy the multi-trillion dollar IT industry by banning PC components, too much pushback from biz and consumers. With more exotic hardware, more easily targeted, less trustless.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think you refer to lack of or disfunctional governance. Proper governance should include a clear mechanism to make decisions and thus settle arguments. E.g. election rules. Problem only arises when no decisions are made and issues pile up.
-
No. Decision-making is a knowledge sharing exercise.
-
Decisions are mainly power exercises. Even when knowledge sharing is involved, the last word is up to the structures which enforce the decision. Such structures will always need a non-automatable decision making to survive
-
So minimize the ability of such structures to grow in the first place.
-
I agree, and I think that it will be the only workable path to go
-
Technocrats hard at work. First step to solving a problem is knowing you have one. You can't code for problems you don't know exist. Limiting governance isn't a solution.
-
As I understood
@NickSzabo4 it is about automating the most as possible areas for decision making: minimize the area of debateble decisions, is more related, to me with optimize, not to limiting. However, this area to be minimized will never be zero.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
hence the best functional governance is dictatorship.. :)
-
In many such cases we are back to attack surfaces, and in particular Kevlar...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And the Trump Administration and the GOP Corporate Sponsors' Wing (particularly the coal and oil businesses) have exposed a lot more surface to attack, and attacked it successfully.
-
Elections as an attack against unelected bureaucrats.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Q: Didnt sparta somehow use argument surface to their advantage by pitting 50% against the other 50% so that nothing could feasibly change and preventing things getting worse as government is want to do?
-
Sounds like bikeshedding. Outsource the dumb and pointless arguments to reduce the argument surface of the actual decisionmakers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.