Maybe. We're talking about a hypothetical power struggle, one aspect of which is that one group subverts the computing resource of another group. Even if at some point the second group realizes this has happened (potentially difficult when not only their decompilation tools but also their intragroup communications are subject to interception and alteration by the first group) there's no guarantee that they will ever regain control of those resources. The first group may be able to leverage their control enough to severely impact the second group's prospects in every aspect of the struggle.
More generally, when groups of people are engaged in a power struggle, there's no guarantee that things will return to the status quo ante.
Wow, that's crazy! I didn't even think about that, but I can totally see how it could be possible. I imagine that the only reliable way to prevent it would be to have multiple redundant systems that operated via consensus.
I think to an high degree it depends on whether the individuals could realistically prevent new instances given resources (e.g. access, head count, number of other high priority tasks, etc.)
From a systems perspective, the observed phenomenon is that the system enters a state where agents no longer meaningfully exchange information and further attempts at information exchange paradoxically result in reduced consensus.
This isn't a problem unique to HN, but is one that HN has systematically tried to avoid. I have no answer, but am taking time to frame and pose the question properly, so that we can consciously acknowledge the phenomenon and address it properly.
One might speculate that if people could systematically avoid entering such a state things such as war wouldn't be possible, I imagine PG would agree.
Yes, this is something above the Byzantine Generals Problem - that scenario didn't take into consideration, that the general's "agenda" is changing over time.
Another interesting angle is, that in case of Bitcoin, both groups have vested interest to cooperate with the other group and having the matter resolved as soon as possible; that's what actually happened in March. It seems to me like a variant of the "Prisoner's dilemma".
This is what I think that the "hostile takeover" is highly unlikely (in Bitcoin scenario), since that would very quickly brought the BTC value down. So like in the Prisoner's dilemma, both groups will become silent and cooperate, rather than "betray" the other.
I don't think they can. No matter how smart the people working on it are there well always be a group of equally smart people on the opposite side trying to game it.
Sorry for the miscommunication then, since if it seems like I was implying that, I clearly wasn't explicit enough in stating that this sort of tactic would not work because it absolutely requires communication in order to coordinate. The game theory does not support the idea that coordination could happen without communication. AWS, Azure, and GCP are all competitors who are incentivized to make moves that hurt the others at their benefit. Coordinating would be moving away from the nash equilibrium, and that behavior would not be able to be sustained without a defined punishment as a part of a collusive relationship, and they would need to communicate to set that up.
Such or will have horrible politics as all those autonomous people fight with each other over who will call the shots and who will control non-existent resources.
There is handling uncertainty and there is organizing workplace to maximise unceirtenity. You described the latter.
To my knowledge, not without a centralized arbiter which can then be evil, stupid, or taken over/destroyed by bad actors. Please correct me if I have the wrong info.
If the majority of people _want_ to fight and is more willing to act in bad faith to hurt the opponent / win the argument rather than willing to correct their opinion by discovering facts, I don't think any technical solution could, nor should, try to correct that ("nor should", because it could quickly turn into some sort of oppression).
That being said, I commend you for looking for such solution, if only because masses' mood swings faster than technical solutions are implemented, and your features will be there when people are fed up with constant conflicts.
More generally, when groups of people are engaged in a power struggle, there's no guarantee that things will return to the status quo ante.
reply