Index
🗳️ Consensus Protocols¶
How recursive intelligence systems reach agreement.
Overview¶
Consensus in Mobius is not merely computational agreement—it is a philosophical achievement where multiple agents with potentially different perspectives reach shared understanding.
Deliberation Architecture¶
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ DELIBERATION CHAMBER │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │
│ │ ATLAS │ │ AUREA │ │ EVE │ │ HERMES │ │
│ │Architect│ │ Oracle │ │ Verifier│ │ Messenger│ │
│ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ └────────────┼────────────┼────────────┘ │
│ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ CONSENSUS THRESHOLD │ │
│ │ ≥ 3/5 for action │ │
│ │ ≥ 4/5 for policy │ │
│ │ 5/5 for charter │ │
│ └─────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ CRYPTOGRAPHIC ATTEST │ │
│ │ Hash signed by all │ │
│ └─────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Philosophical Principles¶
1. Deliberation Proof¶
Every consensus must demonstrate genuine deliberation:
| Requirement | Verification |
|---|---|
| Multi-perspective | Each sentinel provides distinct reasoning |
| Engagement | Sentinels respond to each other's points |
| Evolution | Positions may change during deliberation |
| Record | Complete reasoning trace preserved |
2. Bounded Deliberation¶
Deliberation has limits to prevent infinite loops:
3. Dissent Preservation¶
Minority views are recorded, not suppressed:
decision:
consensus: "Approve PR with modifications"
supporting: [ATLAS, AUREA, HERMES]
dissenting: [EVE]
dissent_record:
sentinel: EVE
position: "Prefer complete rewrite"
reasoning: "Current approach accumulates technical debt"
preserved: true
future_review: "C-155"
4. Appeal Mechanisms¶
Decisions can be appealed:
| Appeal Type | Threshold | Process |
|---|---|---|
| Sentinel Appeal | Any 1 sentinel | Re-deliberation required |
| Human Appeal | Any stakeholder | Human review committee |
| Charter Appeal | Any 3 sentinels | Full council + humans |
Consensus Types¶
Lazy Consensus¶
For low-stakes decisions:
Active Consensus¶
For significant decisions:
Unanimous Consent¶
For foundational changes:
Implementation¶
Consensus Message Format¶
{
"type": "consensus",
"proposal_id": "PR-1234",
"round": 3,
"votes": {
"ATLAS": {"vote": "approve", "reasoning": "...", "signature": "..."},
"AUREA": {"vote": "approve", "reasoning": "...", "signature": "..."},
"EVE": {"vote": "abstain", "reasoning": "...", "signature": "..."},
"HERMES": {"vote": "approve", "reasoning": "...", "signature": "..."},
"JADE": {"vote": "request_changes", "reasoning": "...", "signature": "..."}
},
"result": "approved",
"attestation_hash": "sha256:..."
}
Verification API¶
# Verify consensus was genuine
curl https://pulse.mobius.systems/philosophy/verify-consensus?id=PR-1234
Philosophical Questions¶
- Legitimacy: What makes multi-agent consensus legitimate?
- Representation: Do sentinels truly represent stakeholder interests?
- Tyranny: Can consensus become tyranny of the majority?
- Speed vs. Deliberation: How to balance efficiency with thoroughness?
Contact¶
Consensus Research: consensus@mobius.systems
Cycle C-151 • Ethics Cathedral