That's right, the paper was written quickly and is not of high quality. It is not aiming to be scientifically rigorous.
So rewrite it to the appropriate quality. I think by now you might be in a position to acknowledge that stance is doing the project more harm than good.
But it doesn't change the fact we know what we're doing as can be even seen from that not-well-written paper, or other of many things I wrote about tauchain (
www.idni.org/blog), or the working automated theorem prover I already wrote (github.com/naturalog/tauchain).
So if you'll get deeper into the materials you'll see that it's a very serious project, and we definitely know what we're talking about and do fulfill our promises. If you still have doubts or something more solid to tell, please ask.
You're inviting us to adopt the position that the relatively low quality of the white paper stands as testament to the fact that the team members know what they are doing? tl;dr it's just that you're misunderstood. Yeah, right.
Is that what I said?
I invite asking all hard questions, and definitely do not expect anyone to just believe me.
There are many materials and there is also a lot of code, and I'm basically doing it all by myself, so one cannot expect I'll be able to have perfect materials at any point of time (add to that we're not well-funded).
Nevertheless, the idea for itself is completely rigorous (far to mention - honest), and I'll be very glad with people trying to tackle it.
There are some unforced errors in your writing which suggest that this degree of confidence might be misplaced, e.g. “RDF family which are extremely human readable”. There are lots of qualities openly credited to RDF but “extremely human readable” isn't one of them. You might well hold a personal opinion in RDF's favour but that doesn't provide any evidential support for the claim. And if you're careless enough to allow that through, then who knows what other misconceptions are perhaps running rife through the unclearly-written text.
Well.. XML-RDF, OIL/DAML etc. are not human readable. But Notation3? NQuads? The whole SPO notation? Sorry but I really have to disagree with you on this point. I don't think that other existing language competes with the human readability and simplicity of the subject-predicate-object structure. And if there is, tell me, and we'll try to add dependent type semantics of it, and it might be another frontend to tau.
“So if you'll get deeper into the materials” <- replay that back at leisure, see if it'd work for you. It's a very familiar (and woefully misconceived) tactic to shift responsibility to the reader.
Please tell me another "tactic" other than referring to existing materials and answering questions.
So you claim I should put less time in dev and more on docs? For how long? The next month?
Did you read the new docs btw? At
http://www.idni.org/blog or linked in my comments here.
It's the team's responsibility to articulate the project, leaving it as an exercise for the reader will not suffice. My father taught me: “If a man doesn't understand, it’s because he hasn’t been told properly”. I've found it a solid principle to observe if you're trying to work with people to get things done.
I don't blame anyone for not understanding, it is indeed a concept which is very hard to understand, and it took me a lot of time (I'm not the inventor of the idea, to remind). But soon tau client will be ready and people could touch and feel. Professionally related people like you can join the IRC channel and get instructions how to run themselves the prover I wrote. I'm sure such will give you much appreciation to what we have to far.
This of course has nothing to do with the Agoras project and the presale. Tau is totally free and equal, and doesn't even have a coin. Agoras will be developed over tau. So the hard part - tau - people will get to work with soon and see what it's all about.
Serious is as serious does. Making overweening claims for the tech should be avoided for two reasons: i) they're unnecessary and ii) they undermine the effort.
Please show me *one* overwhelming and not serious claim I claimed.
. Until the next Bitcoin bull run and subsequent spike in new genuinely interested users in the space... the more technology that gets built - the better!