Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:58:34 -0800
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: none (google.com: nothingmuch@woobling.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <028c0197-5c45-4929-83a9-cfe7c87d17f4n@googlegroups.com>
 <941b8c22-0b2c-4734-af87-00f034d79e2e@gmail.com> <6d375199-834e-4630-8b5c-fcc5ed137cb1n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <6d375199-834e-4630-8b5c-fcc5ed137cb1n@googlegroups.com>
From: Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@woobling.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:42:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAQdECALHHysr4PNRGXcFMCk5AjRDYgquUUUvuvwHGoeJDgZJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki
To: "/dev /fd0" <alicexbtong@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 02:10, /dev /fd0 <alicexbtong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are 7 options available to share opinion on an opcode and only 2 in=
clude community support. If a developer wants to ACK a proposal it is possi=
ble to use to 'prefer' or 'acceptable' and 'no' for NACK.

the 6 options (+ "evaluating", which is not in the space) represent
only a subset of the product of two independent dimensions:

- a given dev's (hopefully reasoned) opinion on the technical merit of
a proposal
- and their (speculative, vibes based) opinion about community support.

> At the end of the day bitcoin developers build for community so if someon=
e wants to play safe and use 'deficient' and 'wanting', its their choice an=
d I think we should allow such freedom to express themselves.

to allow that full freedom to express themselves 8 options seem
necessary, not counting "evaluating":

{ no, weak, acceptable, prefer } x { sufficient community support,
insufficient }

(or alternatively, { no, weak, acceptable } is the technical merit
dimension, and then "prefer" seems redundant?)

anyway, supposing all pairs of values were expressible, the latter is
confounded or arguably even ill defined see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest (and this is
exacerbated by the fact that the two values are combined into a single
dimension, e.g. if i strongly prefer something but it lacks community
support), so to allow people to e.g. only express a technical opinion,
and abstain from speculating on community support, we'd want:

{ =E2=8A=A5, weak, acceptable, prefer } x { =E2=8A=A5, sufficient, insuffic=
ient }

(where evaluating =3D (=E2=8A=A5, =E2=8A=A5))

finally, even if the full set of possibilities was expressible, and
assuming the infinite regress of speculating on others' opinions about
others opinions was not an issue, it would still not be totally
orderable, so the color scheme is arguably misleading

both the partial ordering and the speculative nature add a lot of
ambiguity, i.e. different answers are likely to mean different things
to different respondents and to people reading the table

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
CAAQdECALHHysr4PNRGXcFMCk5AjRDYgquUUUvuvwHGoeJDgZJA%40mail.gmail.com.