Summer of Protocols

Came up with another good definition consistent with others we’ve made up in SoP:

A protocol is an agreement about how to agree.

Unlike our broader “engineered argument” definition this is an optimistic one that hopes for a measure of finality and a win-win happily-ever-after outcome of arguments. It also biases for liveness. You can plan for agreeing to disagree rather than ghosting or unilateral exiting.

It puts _intent to agree_ ie mutual good faith, first. Malice and bad faith are treated as anomalous rather than default. Protocols aim to capture rewards of good faith coordination before hardening against malice. If you can’t capture the upside, there’s no reason to defend against malice etc.

Delver at contraptions.venkateshrao.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

This feels too optimistic for Kafka protocols,,, especially those in which coercion is part of the play

Governance Public Utilities for @zksync at @thezknation

But that’s why they are bad protocols and as such more like disguised weapons of centralized coercion!

Ahhhh it’s a bad agreement on how to agree!!