Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:14:45 +0000
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <kfX31euUWC2GP3A1aUwRECN4R9G-hTAmB2sOrvmwnOT3ChmO4G1SOje88cTu53JZqHRw-3pjrQp3s8M5r8unxDlcClV62QZiW48t1NRa1J0=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDZqPcufktdNq5DGnpFH=u2VdQTFjJaHQiLaE7jwWhzPUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALeFGL2Orc6F567Wd9x7o1c5OPyLTV-RTqTmEBrGNbEz+oPaOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaSBayKH__f_ahUUiDt2SiKik9aNLR1AXtG9RtWrFmTLP5qKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDbYj4+g4VPMT9FPqyUZWO+U98YQhgYan5fRqXjpd+dTyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5BAw1pKXh4HLrUQByVMwpUtYyWcE5JhjUP-JB_1HKkORB1dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKg+-qy00X_nSvFDz0HtvfjdsaozzGq4Vr8Vbd06GGZ8k_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDaDRROKQdQ0WcK-RHo5=dQL6tD=LcQbqfS6p8ZEWkpEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKgL5kgWkSB=8ioFkfCxmRJLif-P4VSvX04Ubz_h8A3XYtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDZ_3gffJsdofpLQDg5F6Qg03G+5897SJENQEhVv0d-jrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDaBcZfH=EhoSbsQHp5nKkJZheMPXudDkDjWX56n9PGB_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDZqPcufktdNq5DGnpFH=u2VdQTFjJaHQiLaE7jwWhzPUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for
	Soft Forks
Precedence: list

Good morning Billy,

> @Zman
> > if two people are perfectly rational and start from the same informatio=
n, they *will* agree
> I take issue with this. I view the word "rational" to mean basically logi=
cal. Someone is rational if they advocate for things that are best for them=
. Two humans are not the same people. They have different circumstances and=
 as a result different goals. Two actors with different goals will inevitab=
ly have things they rationally and logically disagree about. There is no un=
iversal rationality. Even an AI from outside space and time is incredibly l=
ikely to experience at least some value drift from its peers.

Note that "the goal of this thing" is part of the information where both "s=
tart from" here.

Even if you and I have different goals, if we both think about "given this =
goal, and these facts, is X the best solution available?" we will both agre=
e, though our goals might not be the same as each other, or the same as "th=
is goal" is in the sentence.
What is material is simply that the laws of logic are universal and if you =
include the goal itself as part of the question, you will reach the same co=
nclusion --- but refuse to act on it (and even oppose it) because the goal =
is not your own goal.

E.g. "What is the best way to kill a person without getting caught?" will p=
robably have us both come to the same broad conclusion, but I doubt either =
of us has a goal or sub-goal to kill a person.
That is: if you are perfectly rational, you can certainly imagine a "what i=
f" where your goal is different from your current goal and figure out what =
you would do ***if*** that were your goal instead.

Is that better now?

> > 3. Can we actually have the goals of all humans discussing this topic a=
ll laid out, *accurately*?
> I think this would be a very useful exercise to do on a regular basis. Th=
is conversation is a good example, but conversations like this are rare. I =
tried to discuss some goals we might want bitcoin to have in a paper I wrot=
e about throughput bottlenecks. Coming to a consensus around goals, or at v=
ery least identifying various competing groupings of goals would be quite u=
seful to streamline conversations and to more effectively share ideas.


Using a future market has the attractive property that, since money is ofte=
n an instrumental sub-goal to achieve many of your REAL goals, you can get =
reasonably good information on the goals of people without them having to a=
ctually reveal their actual goals.
Also, irrationality on the market tends to be punished over time, and a hum=
an who achieves better-than-human rationality can gain quite a lot of funds=
 on the market, thus automatically re-weighing their thoughts higher.

However, persistent irrationalities embedded in the design of the human min=
d will still be difficult to break (it is like a program attempting to esca=
pe a virtual machine).
And an uninformed market is still going to behave pretty much randomly.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj