OP Stack

Thoughts on the tradeoffs of complexity and community building:

Nick Szabo has criticized Ethereum’s complexity using the concept of an “argument surface”. Similar to an attack surface, the argument surface expands with the number of that people can spend time quibbling over. This can bog down a community, and/or open it up to capture. "Governance minimization" requires reducing the argument surface.

Thoughts on the tradeoffs of complexity and community building:

Nick Szabo has criticized Ethereum’s complexity using the concept of an “argument surface”. Similar to an attack surface, the argument surface expands with the number of that people can spend time quibbling over. This can bog down a community, and/or open it up to capture. "Governance minimization" requires reducing the argument surface. 
https://x.com/NickSzabo4/status/1068960876416258049

Pragmatism (Security) at OP Labs.
Prev: ConsenSys & Coinbase.

Attribs: Friendly, curious, introverted, mid-witted.
Chans: /eth-security /maurelian /stoicism




Another counterpoint to minimizing argument surface: You get argument constipation.

When we reduce the argument surface too much and make a few things so dramatically contentious that they're borderline holy, we're unable to make any progress at all.

I guess this is a "balance in all things" situation.

(Also totally agreed on your participation surface point.)

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

Right. It's like a healthy relationship, more regular small arguments are useful to practice moving through them. Rather than bottling up resentments until they explode over a tiny little op code or whether you should need to tidy before the cleaners come.