On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I understand the tradeoff, I just prefer to ratify change events (e.g. > proposals) rather than the state for the ruleset in particular. Unlike > those who like hard-resets every time there's uncertainty (B? Or at > least my impression of B) I don't mind some (reasonably-limited) > reconstruction work, those are at least interesting debates as far as > process goes. > > I think a good compromise is ~annually, at a time when there's less > controversy; the last one was Sept 08 and (as you say) right now we're > in a relatively confused period. So, not now.
B's trouble is that massive gamestate recalculation is kind-of common there, and hard resets aren't nearly common enough. Recently, we actually discovered that nothing at all had happened since the last hard reset (due to various bugs), and we hard-reset again to make sure (including the ratification of absolutely everything in the gamestate, rare in any nomic, including B). -- ais523
