On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:14 PM Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This reply is likely longer and more rambly than it needs to be. For > that, I apologize in advance. > > > I'm tempted to bring out my "self-ratifying events" proto again. Were > > there any particular objections you had? > > > > It wasn't complete, but it is possible to implement in stages. > [...] > > I disagreed with your design. The problem wasn't a fundamental > breakage, but I'm not convinced it works well for modifications beyond > simple state modifications. Take for instance Rule 2034, "Vote > Protection and Cutoff for Challenges". It describes at length a series > of properties about the Agoran decision that we want to ratify. If I > recall correctly, your solution was to ratify into existence a > decision that did have the correct properties. I don't really think > that's what we want. It leaves around another decision that could > potentially be resolved at some point that does something we don't > want. If we create a matcher that instead modifies a similar decision > to have the stated properties, we either have to specify how the match > is determined (adding to rules bloat) or leave it vague (losing the > benefit of the specificity your architecture was supposed to give us).
I'll just add that I'm open to being convinced that something like yours is better. Right now it feels like mine is better, but I'm not as sure of that as I'd like to be. -Aris
