Topic: Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network - page 74. (Read 309668 times)

i contact you for invest some money in project..so pls check your mail. thx

i'm not worry at all. I'm grateful chris de rose open my eyes about etheruem. I dont care If i have to wait 3 years for tau chain. i like this project and I will support it. I just wish people will let the man work in peace. anyways I have a question regarding bitcoin upcoming softfork, how will it affect agoras? thanks

It is very very interesting to view Tauchain project in the light of Ethereum premise and (financial) success. I have done that right form the beginning . if you care to understand this better you need to see that latest interview with Vlad Zamfir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj_Qpvx-GPM&feature=youtu.be (all 5 parts). Ethereum deliver community faith in cryptoeconomic trough a social verification process of having some big names and big companies join the party. Every single ICO project on Etherum need a celebrity name attached as advisory if not founder, a nice website, some marketing in the community through the social networks and investor flock to get their share.

Price is reflecting the thread vibe

Github updated 1 year ago
Team conflict
No timeline
Rising btc value
Blind faith in dev



This is a gamble at this point :/

The heart of that which we as a spices have to resolve.We are social creature living in large communities like ants and bees yet we each maintain a sense of complete and separate entity, an autonomous being. The main contradiction here is that if each and one of us is motivated to do only the best to humanity as a whole, but since each of us is a different entity we would all end up disagreeing and fighting each other to the end.

When we review this in terms of information theory the it makes a lot sense: The information that Alice have will always be greater than that of bob regarding her experiences and vice versa, thus the more individuals we interact with the greater that gap of information between each individual in the group to the rest of them becomes. "culture" as a collective set of rules and knowledge is one way to overcome that, separation of powers is the other way. If "culture" assert a code of behavior that is enforced by a consensus but not by any law, separation of powers is a law which made to disable the ability of one to rule all.

When Tauchain was first conceived it was built on the premise that the program set the rules by which rules are going to be accepted - The rule of rule making. yet when one go on that path of rules it will always hit the wall of consensus. In mathematics we name it axioms. We can never speak of pure mathematical consents without consent to the the axioms which give the meaning to the phrase expressed (same a any other language).

Tauchain was created with the notion of Godle incompleteness theorem and its implication on programming. The personal level that we see this mathematical and programming project turns in to, only emphasis the unresolved state as of yet, when HMC holding the "Separation of powers" as the founding grounds while Ohad is now experimenting with contextual consensus (which I referred to as "culture") as the foundation. However in fact each approach in order to work need the other to balance it out. Satoshi resolved that only to a second degree of logic yet HMC and Ohad both try to resolve it at the fundamental degree of infinity, that fractal structure of the rule of the rule of the rule ...ext of rule-making.

Satoshi's attempt to resolve that same paradox yield Bitcoin which is not a complete solution but a great and proven step forward
Satoshi's trick was to apply the "separation of powers" for the agreement reach as a consensus using incentive architecture to compensate for the luck of a "culture" as a motivation then use the state of consensus as the culture on which to built the next block. That "culture" is then enforced by all nodes who wish to take part in the "game" and the gains involved in that "game" The consensus thus represent the social unity (culture) while the transaction and its verification is done by a "separation of powers" method. This equilibrium of interests are reached at every block and allow the entire ecosystem to progress over to the next block. this entire scheme is sustainable thanks to the effort needed to undo the chain and then to compete with the longest chain. However as we are all witnessing these days Satoshi solution lack a major component

"Separation of powers" is an agreement all sides comply with, and so is a consensus, assuming that each individual is free to join or leave at any given moment by exercising free will, however.....no individual should have power over the other once enter the scheme. A fork means that all information and all states are at agreement up to the point of forking thus at the moment of forking each  individual can make a choice without losing anything. However this is not true since while consenting to the consensus some individuals (or groups with in) lost power gained by others.

The fundamental question this raise is far more inclusive than "governing" which it is now the common expression to describe the problem withing the bitcoin community. It is the question of identity of an individual participant in the game It is "identity" since it is an information issue and identity is the way information differ. a difference in the state of information each participant have is the fundamental quality that make one be other then the other one and not all be just parts of the same one.

In short the governing issue is not governing but rather information. in order to keep the "separation of powers", information have to stay at the hand of the individual entity. This means that each entity have to have some sort of unique information no other participant can appropriate yet that formation is crucial to the network as a whole. Identity means one unique none cloned information package (like a bitcoin coin)  which only that individual can reveal. But.... that a verifier can verified .

The problem that both Ohad and HMC need to resolve together is how to built that verifier. Satoshi's solution for verification is open Leger, but such ledger erase the individual as such and result in a 'governing" problem.   If they fork we will not get it either. if they cant work together it means that they cant built it together and if they cant built it together even if working separately it can not be built, not by any of them.

So lets look at the verifier problem now. We need to trust the verifier and that verifier thus can not be a third party that can make gains in the game, unless it is the game itself. The trick is the game. I am me only in that game. on each game I will be a new me. each fork will restart all gamers as new entities thus they all will lose. its a game that if you enter you gain and if you leave you lose but whatever you gain or lose dont change the sum for the others only for the total of the game.

Let me tokenize that, first as value of money, then we will be able to move on to see how we transform the token to information other then money.
lets assume every player get a token once enter the game and all other players get a fraction of a cloned token for each new player (equal to the new player added value). thus for each new player the system gains two  tokens one for the new player and one to share between old players. Now these tokens have a unique quality. they can never be spend as a whole. meaning that the program can identify each fragment as part of that one. now lets assume that the token given to the new player is not divisible. thus the only thing that a new player can do is sent his token and by that "delete his account" and at the moment his account is deleted so are all the fragments of the cloned token. this way each individual carry the real power of his original membership even if never accumulated any more tokens.

my apology for making this too short of an explanation (will expend on that soon) and jump now into exchanging the value token with information. My token is my identity in terms of information. all players shares the information but if use it together will loose it. thus are insenevize to avoid "knowing" all about who I am. I am still free to do as a wish but as a new player in a new game. However the players in this game have the incentive to keep me in the game since they lose their ability to participate without having my and each other's fragments of tokens as trade-able assets. That tokenized rule of information is all that matters. All other rules can be reach as a consensus of majority.

Price is reflecting the thread vibe

Github updated 1 year ago
Team conflict
No timeline
Rising btc value
Blind faith in dev



This is a gamble at this point :/

(Ok, I'll bite...)

I'm very curious: what "command" do you believe I've given... and to whom, exactly?

Agreed.

Thank you Master HMC for opening our Nomic eyes but we, your slaves, have decided to disobey your supreme command and build the real Tau who speaks freedom, not for your self-satisfying spiritual egoism, but for a better world.
So be it.

Hmm... interesting approach   worth opening thread of your own

Seriously speaking, it would be nice to see the progress on both parts of a splitted project. Only final product can prove who was right

Peace & Love.

"our interaction should have only one form: i speak, i do not provide proofs or sources, and your (mine) role, is to prove that i'm *right*".

I wouldn't mind  following your work HMC. Do you have a thread of your own to follow? No offense,  I come here to read up on Tau.

no, and quite the contrary. the plan is to have majority (or nearly majority) of the coins to be sold after tau is ready and before agoras is ready (which is the moment when unsold coins will be burnt). we'll try to adjust it to happen by price raises (i.e. to avoid selling nearly majority of the coins beforehand)