RE: Thoughts on an Ethereum Classic Roadmap
This post covers several different layers: Consensus, Governance, and Foundational (EVM and code execution) layer. Do you think these three layers should be tackled at the same time, or do we need to get one figured out before the other?
Also, those best-suited for making governance decisions may not be as qualified to make technology decisions. What do you think of separation of duties? Does it require some overruling sovereign entity?
My own opinion: Dash, Futarchy, and Tezos are fairly complex governance mechanisms, relative to what we have now. They could be built as overlays and therefore be separate from the underlying technology. ETC as it stands could support multiple "governments" and communities while operating on a single network/blockchain.
These are really good points and I'll address them in order. First, with respect to the complexity of each item, I agree entirely and they need to be rolled out in stages if at all. Each will require a game theoretic analysis to better understand incentives for participation.
Second, with respect for governance decisions, in the short term some form of delegation to domain experts would be a good model, but it invites centralization of power. The Futarchy movement is an attempt to extract knowledge out of the domain experts without giving them direct power. There is some evidence of it working in practice thanks to Robin Hanson's work; however, it's never been tried with blockchains much less an open source protocol.
Tezos is the wild card. We only know what has been proposed in the whitepaper and Arthur seems to have some good ideas, but I haven't seen the actual protocol and code. We'll have to wait to September to get a better sense of what's possible.
I think we ought to tackle the problems in a staged process with the resolution of the replay attack and consensus model first. Then move on to governance and then move on to gradual improvements to the EVM. Some things are extensions and do not require modification of the core protocol such as a functional DSL.
I like your idea of multiple governments and some of the ideas from the Tendermint community via Cosmos have some pull in this direction. The monetary policy does present some complication however. Love to hear more thoughts.
Has futarchy actually shown evidence of working? My understanding of Hanson's research is that his studies were largely conducted on groups of econ students. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If we restrict "governance" to the goal of making it easier to create secure smart contracts (as playerdeus suggested), I don't think the decision-making process needs to be so complicated. I much prefer a simple time-tested system, such as having representatives with separated domains of expertise. Complex decision-making systems will lead to attempts to game the system.
As far as monetary policy and multiple governments, I'm just putting out ideas, so feel free to ignore them. Maybe each government/organization would issue their own currency, such as DAO tokens or Augur tokens. Then it's up to their individual organizers to determine monetary policy. ETC would just be a commodity that reflects different exchange rates in different token-currencies.