Topic: Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network - page 88. (Read 309654 times)

Still working by yourself Ohad? isn't time to add some members to help you with such ambition? you are risking to get left behind by the time you will finish the work

add to that that one short funding period is an invention of the cryptocurrency world. no startup works like that. and they have at least x1000 times more success and experience in creating good products

Actually I know there's at least one ICO that's been ongoing since late 2013/early 2014:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sky-skycoin-launch-announcement-380441

Skycoin that is, iirc they are almost ready to launch..

Huge loss? Everyone can see the price has been relatively stable since the start. Just because it is residual doesn't mean anything, there was and is always the bittrex marketplace.

Forum is as dead as the project.  I'm out, huge loss, but its better than nothing what most of you who bought and hold will be left with.
Lesson learned i know not to trust any ICO on ICOContdown for continuously hosting this SCAM and  Never ending ICO.

Take my advice anyone reading this thinking about investing, DO NOT BUY THIS.

Thanks Ohad, Bittrex said they couldn't help but the Transaction did confirm. Took about five days.

i guess you have one of two ways:
1. wait. chances it'll confirm eventually aren't so small
2. contact bittrex and ask them to cancel the transaction (it's possible if the transaction didn't get confirmations yet. not terribly easy, but not hard)

thanks for these updates ohad, appreciate the window into your head.  This work is so fascinating to me.

Hi Ohad,

Moved Agoras off Bittrex to OmniWallet.

Two transactions worked but a third got stuck and is unconfirmed after 3-4 days:
http://omniexplorer.info/lookuptx.aspx?txid=c0e2068c90bf9d7443e2055439e69ff9de70ca886efd5551ece86787daeaed9e

Any solution?

Thank you.

no

Is this project already working?

in real life, forming a theory together, is a live social process, that inevitably, contains many non-theories, while everything else would be non-realistic for humans. that's one of the biggest recent lessons

voting is such a black-or-white thing. if you propose something, am i allowed to say only "yes" or "no"? how about a system supporting a more constructive yet formal discussion? and what if your proposal is incomplete, yet not worthless, and you want to propose others to offer you a completion?
and what if your proposal is contradictory, yet not worthless? there might be, for example, several ways to resolve the contradiction, and you'd like your friends (or team members) to suggest you which to choose.

i saw it on their website. by generic knowledge i basically refer to the expressiveness of their language.
they do require you to write code. code can be seen as a proved statement, which is fine, but is up to the programmer to prove in many cases, however it requires more than that. this has structural implications on how you can say what you have to say. it's a point i'm frequently strugging to explain, but let's try the following. when we write a contract, or a book, we mean that all sentences written there are true. we implicitly mean that the reader should take the *conjunction* of all sentences/clauses/paragraphs. i refer to this as the "conjunctive nature" of how we express ourselves. proofs and programs, on the other hand, are of compositional nature. think i'd like to express an in idea for you in writing, so i write a paragraph with many holes such that you cannot understand a thing out of it, and then i give you words and half-sentences to substitute on those holes, many of such sets of substitutions, and you'll have to read that first paragraph again and again but with different substitutions in the hole places. you'd hate that. but machines love that. i believe that we should stick to our conjunctive nature, and let machines translate it by themselves into a compositional nature.
what this practically means is,
specification is also of conjunctive nature. typically, you want a program that do/satisfy "this AND that AND that". the order doesn't matter. unlike the curry-howard approach in old tau (similar also to prolog), on the new tau executing the program does not mean "executing the spec/logic", namely the operations taken have nothing to do with the reasoning process, and we don't invoke curry-howard correspondence at all. the logic is about the program, is not the program itself. and has a conjunctive nature, especially when it comes to large number of participants, each stating their opinion.
there's much more to say, and i'll say slowly.


indeed we don't follow the coq way in many senses. not to say anything bad about coq, the contrary. it's just for slightly different purposes.
yes Miller had a lot to do with "proof of execution", economically hashing the execution tree for selected datatypes. Zooko is a very knowledgable guy as well.



think of the "facebook with controlled english" metaphore.


by no means the system will tell people what to think. but votes isn't necessarily the best way. your opinion can be extracted from all your other opinions that you stated, or that others stated and you agreed/disagreed with. can you imagine people voting for proposals all day, rather state their worldview "once" and forever? (they may change their mind too). that's in very very short

I think it's wishful thinking to imagine that non-experts will be able to amend the protocol or understand deeply what they are voting for. Tezos's solution apparently is to allow people who don't understand what they are asked to vote for to delegate their votes to someone they believe knows better and shares their perspective. Not a bad idea. At best, you could have experts rephrasing the decision in simpler terms in plain english, but then you would still need to trust that they are not misrepresenting the problem or showing a bias, and you would still need people to really try to understand what they say at a logic level which isn't a given, and then there is the laziness. As pointed in the interview, the DAO was a good example of how in practice, most people won't really bother voting.


Would that be a solipsistic look or a totalitarian look or an omniscient look ?

Well, now there is also Autonomic

I agree. Although there is quite a bit of overlap on the fundamentals, Tezos seems to be specifically aiming at protocol governance, whereas Tau is both much more general in scope and closer to the metal due to the versatility of its RDF syntax which gives it the ability to blend naturally with semantic structure of which it is only a flavor. I think we can probably learn a lot from the launch of Tezos, their approach, their mistakes, and how things pan out with the nomic game.

I asked that already

In the EpiCenter interview, he talks about layers, of which only the topmost layer that contains functional rules about the way the blockchain is working and the business logic would be self-amending, which includes consensus rules and voting. Based on that, I think all of the lower level stuff like network communication, overlay network management, DHT etc are hard coded and evolve following a regular software life cycle. This is actually made more explicit later in the interview where Arthur Breitman explains that only changes that involve governance issues are really controversial and subject to on-chain consensus, whereas more technical issues such as bug fixes are following the normal software life cycle and adopted following the normal soft/hard fork rules as people update their clients.

probably ledger = blockchain, generic knowledge = whatever state the blockchain is used to maintain?
Can you provide the context?


He mentioned in the interview that he was inspired by Coq for the formal verification. Coq is written in OCaml so going with OCaml would probably have saved quite a bit of time. I can't find back the detailed team page of Tezos, but if I remember well there were some people from Inria, so that would also explain why they went for OCaml.

Just noticed that Andrew Miller is an advisor of the project. Wasn't he also following Tau? And there is Zooko too! What a small world. I wonder if HMC knows the tezos guys.

two relevant links:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14904326
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dana-edwards/tezos-the-generic-self-amending-crypto-ledger (see also comments)

.. and after listening to the interview:
he says that people will prepare their proposals and then by some vote (60%) they'll decide which proposal to accept.
my bigger question is, and is a question "against" the old tau as well, and "against" nomic:
how do you expect people to form well-formed proposals, that actually express what they meant and so on?
do you expect this to be an individual process for experts?
on the new tau we consider this a collaborative process for non-experts, the process of forming a proposal, aside the process of accepting it.

a smaller point would be regarding votes. once you take a close look, you don't need them anymore

two more points:
1. need to understand what they mean by "ledger" and in what it's different than "generic knowledge". EDIT: indeed they seem to focus on contracts
2. ocaml impl?! ... the easy but eventually-useless way?

it is indeed a decent project, i saw him speaking several months ago and was impressed. it might be the only thing out there that is close to tau. that said, there's still a big gap. i'd ask two things before decidability: expressibility, and which parts of the system are amendable (is it the whole code no matter what?). and that, taking into account the old tau. the new tau refines the process much more than nomic.