Re: DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 9:47 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > > Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice > (co-author = ais523) > > Amend Rule 2505 (Random Choices) by replacing this text: > >The selecting person SHOULD make the selection method >public, and SHOULD use a method for which the final probability >distribution can be readily confirmed. > > with this text: > >The selecting person SHOULD announce the selection > method ahead of time, SHOULD use a method for which the final > probability distribution can be readily confirmed, and SHALL NOT > perform any other regulated actions between performing the selection > method and announcing its result. As per the CFJ 3007 judgement (as it stands now), "between performing the selection method and announcing its result" should be replaced with something like "during the selection method", because announcing the result is part of the selection method, not something done after. Not sure if the judgement suggests any other tweaks to make in this rule. -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 4:07 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2023-02-12 21:47]: > > Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice > > (co-author = ais523) > > Not to dismiss this, but I have long wondered about the applicability of > verifiable random numbers in Agora. What do you all think about this? > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3797__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gLYnFipmMZ4zIHmSPTdnBzt9voUo5Yjb9A5fVhSCzqSW8G2iTQ7jAg3OfqGZSPjKdnYesajWKJvBaJlVT4-_ro1KyNY$ This is a debate that has come up from time to time in Agora. When it comes up, there's been a split between "we should use a service that allows full public verification" and "if we're not playing a game where we can trust enough to roll a physical die and report the result, I don't want to play" (I'm mostly in the latter camp personally). The current compromise rule is the current SHOULD - prior to several Officers using Discord rolling as a habit[*], we often rolled with a verifiable email dice service to satisfy that SHOULD. We've also done some more creative things (examples: for 0-99, announce ahead that one will use the last 2 digits of tomorrow's closing Dow Jones average, which looking at years of data passes various tests of randomness[**] and the method is actually suggested in the RFC you linked. Another creative way was explicitly directly using a radioactive source so the randomness was random in a full quantum sense). That creativity is kind of cool when it comes up IMO, which is another reason not to formalize on a particular service. [*] not truly verifiable, though some of us have been treating it that way, and it's usable by anyone fast enough to email between observing the the selection on discord and the follow-up email though I don't think anyone has "cheated" that way. [**] this method highlights ais523's point - in that case, the random number could be known by everyone, be fully confirmable and sufficiently random, and still be responded to by everyone before the "roller" takes the action that depends on the number. -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2023-02-12 21:47]: > Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice > (co-author = ais523) Not to dismiss this, but I have long wondered about the applicability of verifiable random numbers in Agora. What do you all think about this? https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3797 -- juan
DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice (co-author = ais523) Amend Rule 2505 (Random Choices) by replacing this text: The selecting person SHOULD make the selection method public, and SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed. with this text: The selecting person SHOULD announce the selection method ahead of time, SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed, and SHALL NOT perform any other regulated actions between performing the selection method and announcing its result. [Maybe these SHOULDs should be upgraded to SHALLs, either across the board, or in certain cases such as officer duties. Or we could just impeach officers suspected of abusing their discretion. Lying about the validity of a method would constitute a No Faking violation, though I expect we will continue to generally trust that Agorabot is not being tampered with behind the scenes, just as we generally trust that no one is using sock-puppet accounts. For context, all random choices currently defined are tied to offices: the Stonemason for Collection Notices, the Mad Engineer for rule selections to mutate the Device, and the Horsened for motivating the horses (anyone CAN do it, but the Horsened SHALL do it unless someone else already did that week).]
