Chaos

I did something similar with Chaos[0], though it was less a game, and more of a social experiment. The basic idea is that the code lived somewhere on a remote machine as a bot that interacted with Github. The purpose of the bot was to automatically make decisions about pull-requests to its own code base, and then re-deploy itself. It was like a living organism in a way. It initially started off as a democracy, requiring some % of "thumbs up" emojis on a PR before merging, but a few times it took a left turn when a "malicious" user was able to merge in code that gave them extra rights. And occasionally, the server would crash from a bad merge and I'd have to go fix it manually. 0. https://github.com/Chaosthebot/Chaos

This sort of reminded me of ChaosBot [0], something that sounds like what could be a total disaster, ended up being really neat. https://github.com/Chaosthebot/Chaos

But how does this work in practice? I could (theoretically) create 5000 github accounts and have full control over the repo in one month [1]. This means I could create a pull requests which gives my main account absolute voting rights unless other real people try to organize over 5000 accounts to vote no. While this can happen in the real world as well (just look at Turkey), it is quite hard to achieve (you first need enough people to support you that you can gain such power). In the internet, creating accounts is pretty easy and unless github flags my accounts (which can always be circumvented), there is no real democracy just like with Bitcoin when the most determined/resourceful person has the most power. That's because they either managed to create enough accounts, or in bitcoins case, have custom hardware to control the creation of b

https://github.com/chaosbot/chaos/pull/48 "Need more chaos" proposes this.

Discarding votes after `rebase` commits looks like a pretty bad problem now: https://github.com/chaosbot/chaos/pull/26

Looks like there's a revolution going on already https://github.com/chaosbot/chaos/pull/42