Topic: Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network - page 169. (Read 309533 times)

Just found out about this: https://twitter.com/tauchain
It's a fake.

agreed, and in progress. the sale has just began and may take months, we will invest resources in PR over time ofc.
btw http://www.idni.org/pre-sale

you should make some noise about the presale so that more people are aware of it.
for example, at least have a cleanly designed website when you decide to "officially go public" about the sale because I feel that the current phase is still more of a "pre-presale"
all the best,

The most truthful and covering answer would be: on tau's chain, rules and behavior can be changed over time by the users.
But this answer is obviously not enough.

Let me state a very particular use case: Over tau one could give a formal specification of a program to be written. Like: a program that only verifies if a given program meets some requirements. Of course, it is inherently much easier to verify a program than to write it. Now, whoever supplies a code that fulfills the requirements, will be able to supply a logical proof for that (it is possible with functional programming languages), and the network will automatically reward them the coins offered for the implementation.
Moreover: next time someone will look for a program (or function) answering those specifications, the answer will already be there, and code will be able to be reused.

I'd like to clarify, due to many questions about this, that on Agoras there isn't any ongoing generation of new coins planned, by the same rationale presented here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9430958

All talks about miners can indeed mean POW as in BTC for the sake of timestamping, but still not incentivized by new coins. Conversly, when I mentioned quad-quoted ""miners"", the meaning is some participants with heavy computatational powers doing some work for the sake of the net, but not timestamping, nor coin generation.

So when we speak about %50 of Agoras, it's from everything. And, we will sell beyond the %50 -- similarly to the previously planned Zennet model -- but the price set is for the "first" %50.

Maybe some of you got the impression that we became zillioners while delivering nothing. The very opposite is true. We work very hard to give to the world yet unseen (even unimaginable) abilities, and we didn't bring enough money even to cover our expenses. I'm a sci and tech guy, not a marketing man. I think it can be seen we have never pushed the public to purchase. Yes, we spoke a lot about a public presale, but things change and legal work has to be redone (and we need money for this as well).

I didn't collect that much so far
When I find out a new thing (namely, tauchain) that makes the classic blockchain obsolete, I think the correct thing is to move to the new tech. ofc this was done with a lot of thinking and getting advice.


Which promise didn't I keep? Original Zennet's plan is to keep the source closed up to release. Tau code will hopefully be public soon, and ofc the code tau users will put in it.


There are a lot of proofs to the dev process, just take the docs for example (at zennet case). Joining our IRC will leave you with no doubts, I guess.

Whitepaper is interesting , let's see how this project takes  shape.

is this the new thread of a old project?

watching .....

OK, so your in the cash collection phase. And even changed your original plans without refunding the money you already collected. Where is the proof of concept?

I have a hard time believing you can deliver on your promise's, all I've seen so far is hot air.

Thats not to say your not legit, I'm saying I've seen nothing to prove that you are. And the proof is on you, your the one asking for backing.

obv calculus of contructions would fit. i'll correct it. again, this doc isn't written for the experts. but i agree it should be accurate anyway.

wrt the temporal representation, we can do blockchain timestamping.

BTW the proposed design has nothing to do with NL. Obviously, enhancing it into NL would be awesome, but it can be as another layer, and, we do want a firm basis for the sys dont we.

I'm very happy to have you here and I'm thankful for the opportunity to learn.


right, nothing is rigorous there, and I may assume a wrong assumption that the expert reader see it all. I think my next answers will shed some light for you:


it's both true in formal language formalism and makes sense to the common reader


Existing tools are only for the beginning. I see the next versions to be SMT solvers based and such. BTW,  HunterMinerCrafter and myself (but mainly him) made some advancements on SMT algorithms (If it interests you please join the IRC channel).
I'm very aware of the fact that not everything is efficiently solvable, and the reasoner won't answer all your questions. But, and that's a big but: the network will. How? Either human or machine. Is it a problem to offer Clay prizes over this network, so when the proof is verified, they automatically win the prize?
Some reasoning will be done by the local client, some by other strong computers (""miners""), some by humans, and some will never be solved.


Even in my worst dreams I don't see a release of mine in python it is only for the quick beginning of the formation of the rules. This is where the big questions are!


I definitely do not expect Attempto to understand Wikipedia. It should be looked like an "easy" programming language.


Gonna read now!

Does Satoshi know about this? 

The mathematico-logical background needs expanding some and needs to be a bit more coherent about the solidity it confers to the principles of what you're aiming to do with rules.

The section on RDF is a bit loose but that may be just a linguistic challenge (you describe the components of a triple/quad as “words”, which they certainly aren't).

As for the various references to ontology/ontologies, I can't help but think we're working to two entirely different definitions because, try as I might, I just can't seem to build an understanding that leads me to the same conclusions as you. I'm tempted wave my hands vigorously and refer you to the extensive body of research into just how mind-numbingly difficult it is to combine or even cross-correlate ontologies but that would be mischievous now that you've accepted my critique I'll limit myself to suggesting that you double-check your assumptions about the feasibility of freely combining user-developed ontologies because my understanding is that the field remains very much at the research stage.

I'm passingly familiar with EulerGUI and I'm somewhat surprised at your choice (as opposed to Protege, by contrast). It is (unfortunately) ill-resourced and has fallen behind the curve. I note that they claim to support FuXi, which is going back about five years now.

Chime has no current plan to take Fuxi forward and so it is now sadly confined to either the ‘layercake’ frozen Python 2.6/RDFLib 2.4.1 package or my now-obsolete port for use with RDFLib>=3 (pre SPARQL 1.1). FuXi doesn't work with gromgull's SPARQL 1.1 implementation and isn't likely to without a major refactoring that Chime has no intention of doing, aiui. So, for any forward-looking project, FuXI isn't really a viable option.

I won't comment on cwm's functionality. aiui, it remains timbl's personal code sandpit and I'm not even sure it's officially maintained. I believe it's not compatible with Python 3 which is not necessarily a show-stopper in itself but that must blight its candidacy as underpinning reasoning technology for any ambitious new project, just in terms of executing in anything less than a geological timescale.

I severely doubt that everyday users will be comfortable using Attempto --- I'm fairly sure that successful use requires users to undergo a significant amount of training. You're correct in that it's the only game in town but whilst that might be adequate for research purposes, I question whether it's suitable for imminent deployment - if you can't find at least a handful of successful real-world deployments, I suggest your reconsider the whole NL aspects of the tauchain project with an emphasis on checking what's currently actually feasible and not just researchers' fond imaginings.

On the NL side, I did explore Quepy's NL features in relation to a semweb project that I'm currently pursuing. The project's domain of discourse is the re-presentation of transparency information otherwise ineptly published by the UK Parliament (c.f. owl-o-parl.org) and the Quepy exploration was oriented thus.

I published a write-up of my Quepy investigation which I shall hesitantly recommend to other readers of this thread in that they might find it accessible and gain some illumination on RDF, etc.

Cheers

Graham

Well see on Zennet's thread why ASICs might be good here: we want the computers to do real useful work on such systems.

Did you consider the CryptoNight algo? I think right now is the fairest algo around, it is designed to make CPU and GPU mining roughly equally efficient and restrict ASIC mining.

Thanks.

The answer seems affirmative, since we do need timestamping. We still design the fine details

You guys, gonna use some kind of POW to secure the network? Which will be the algo?

Thanks.

You don't get my point, man,  anyway, this is a fantastic coin, I will support it forever as long as you developer guys don't leave it alone.