1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC6AC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:14:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672DA40D96
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:14:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id jMufDp-lx5XD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:14:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.135])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09CA440D8F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:14:56 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:14:45 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail2; t=1651299293;
bh=WzA88TBaT1L3anckpioLKrzmULY3MgpFFI1FSn401+Q=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:
Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=LCXu7hp69D/P+tnqKBJOP16jA6rkzQgwg+ouhy4Vz6hiBokP79ZfflyMI2ZFzDlBV
t/7lVkuAL8Yxb2afw/kpk7pUDxwrLGeh4884bXwPkO2/Q2mjDvfczF2lvKZXWNvBKr
XcRUSgYbXmYV2ARRYNpxSnz35EpfH7Ha3TwNjZTlSPQFEtJD4az1psqQ1bZkNDl3M1
3ulRgxhWsSf9hruTnnW3xcn2MEtC9qKCCobxexwtmCaDlPYZcVI4Grp8uL0xu6ZO8u
2O88vNr7CnRSVD0TZQsCEKoiKyuaTPgRbgEU8pczeHEM0GQYxktxJRH0QJnycMjcxO
pJsrObDBoNf7Q==
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
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:14:58 -0000
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
|
