The Era of Signals and Changing Power Dynamics. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. October 8, 2018.
The world we live in is rapidly changing. For instance the #MeToo era has arrived. This new era shows us that any individual in any position in society can be brought down. It proves a point that many in the blockchain community may have known instinctively which is that any individual source of authority and or power can and may be removed from that position. Some people actively choose to seek to be in these positions of power for their own reasons and then some of these people abuse their positions of power. People who seek power for the wrong reasons and then abuse it are in my opinion a risk which positions of authority bring (which blockchain technology may help reduce).
What are signals and what is signalling theory?
Social desirability bias is a popular topic in academic circles. To explain:
In social science research, social desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad," or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.
People tend to want to be liked/loved. People when asked questions on a survey may feel pressured to answer the survey in a way which they think they will be viewed more favorably by others. In other words rather than answering in a manner which they truly think or feel they will assess how others might judge their response and then answer in a way which they think they will be judged more favorably.
A full video on this topic is below:
Social desirability bias is exactly why voting on platforms such as Steem will not work. When voting is public then most of the research seems to show that people will feel pressured to answer the question not in the way which they really believe or prefer but in the way which they think the whales want them to vote or prefer. In other words because on Steem the whales can reward (or punish) anyone who votes in ways which go against "political sensibilities" it is likely that social desirability bias applies particularly on DPOS style consensus platforms. If there are votes and the votes are not encrypted (secret) then we have no way to determine which votes are legitimate and which votes are the result of signalling (such as virtue signals).
For example when it was Trump vs Hillary the polls suggested Hillary would win. This is because there likely was social desirability bias which made it socially undesirable for anyone to admit they voted for Trump. As a result people who voted for Trump or who planned to vote for Trump may have said in public that they intended to vote for Hillary. Because the votes in the election are secret the people who may have seemed like loud Hillary supporters could have been secret Trump supporters in disguise.
In some of my previous posts I discuss signalling theory a bit more:
In these posts I have identified that behavior of individuals is shaped by how individuals think other individuals will think of their behaviors. This would apply to social desirability optimization which I'll label as adopting behaviors which provide the expected payoff of being rewarded with improved social desirability.
To provide clarity the definition of social desirability:
Social desirability is the tendency for research participants to attempt to act in ways that make them seem desirable to other people.
In other words people want to be liked. Likeability is a word I can use to simplify the concept of social desirability for readers. In the example with the 2016 election it is clear that supporters of Trump would risk a social stigma with severe social consequences if they came out in public support. This high cost of public support is why some believed that there were secret Trump supporters who were simply afraid of "losing face". In the most simple terms a person can talk red or talk blue depending on where the social stigma is.
One of the stunning conclusions I reached in my own research on this topic is that the increasing transparency leads to "preference falsification". That is a person who is talking blue while thinking red. If all speech is public (like it is on Steem) then there is the possibility that preference falsification is taking place.
Here is a video on the topic of preference falsification:
Why is this a major problem in the blockchain community? The evolutionary trajectory of a platform relies entirely on market preferences. If censorship exists and conformist pressures hinder true preference aggregation then the developers (and the community itself) will have no way of knowing which improvements to make or which changes would best satisfy the community.
What is leadership and what is the era of signals?
Before I attempt to discuss leadership I will first explain what I think leadership means and what it is. In my opinion the community must always come first. A person who is put into a leadership position is in my opinion in what I'll term "the seat of responsibility". This is in my opinion not an enviable position to be in but someone has to be in this position. For example a person who receives a security clearance is now in a position of heavy responsibility. The information which they protect is not their secrets but the nations secrets.
Leadership in my understanding is not about "being in power" but is about serving a community. To be in a "big seat" is to be in a position of responsibility to make decisions on behalf of a community which the chosen person must represent. In other words being in positions of responsibility is entirely about service and not about power. A representative in congress is not in a position of power but in a position to serve their constituents who put them in that position to represent their interests.
In my opinion to be a good leader is to be a great listener. The leader must listen to the community to find out what the community wants and or needs. The leader must listen to the community to determine what the community thinks is right or wrong. The leader then must offer solutions or proposals or policies which satisfies the requirements of the community. What matters more than who is in the seat is the seat itself. This means the Presidency itself matters more than who is in office. The positions themselves matter more than who is in them. Long after whomever is in these positions are gone there will be these positions to be filled. Any leader in any position is replaceable by someone else if they show failure to lead (whether it be a CEO, or a President of a country, or a lead developer, or any other kind of community leader).
In my understanding it is like chess where all pieces on the board can be in various positions. We know in chess that the pawn can become any piece on the board. The point with this analogy is that individuals in my opinion are not likely to remain the source of power in society. The source of power in society is increasingly becoming the community for better or for worse. According to me, to lead is to serve and to lead effectively is to serve effectively.
To accept a responsibility to serve (to lead) it is required to seek feedback from all whom the community servant represents. This does not require voting specifically but it does require under any circumstance a mechanism by which the community can give brutally honest feedback to the system itself. When I say the system itself I do not mean the feedback must go direction to those who serve the system but that the system must have a means of collecting data, analyzing data, and then informing those who can improve the system on which changes best would satisfy the needs of the community.
In my opinion this is a very data driven process. I do not think leaders can for example process big data using their brain power. This will require that they harness the power of machines (machine intelligence). There is also risk if all the processing is done by one company (such as Google) just as there is risk if all people rely on Facebook for the news and opinions. We can see that Facebook has the ability right or wrong to shape elections by deforming the news feed or by allowing certain fake profiles to interact on the site. We see that Facebook can ban crypto ads at will for example to enforce certain policies without taking any kind of poll from the community or the users for instance. We simply do not see any poll data from the users which indicated that the users were tired of seeing crypto ads.
Summary of thoughts on leadership:
Augmenting the wisdom of the community as a means of better governance
In a world where the community must decide what to do we have a situation where responsibility is increasingly diffuse. This means while it is true that the signature may come from the face of the community (if it is a human face) it is still the community which has to be capable of wisdom. The problem is most communities in the world do not become wiser as more join the community. A bigger community doesn't produce better policies by merely voting together. The problem is while most people have opinions it does not mean opinions are well informed or scientific or wise. The lack of wisdom in a community results in horrible (harmful) policies, over reactions, systemic bias, and more.
The conclusion I have reached so far is that in order to have better governance in an era where the community is the government it is a requirement that the community be wise. It's not enough to simply give the community unlimited power to shape the future without providing any capacity for the community to be wise or to do research or to solve problems. Voting in the sense we see in elections does not involve informed voters. Information supplied to voters is almost always sub par and voters are expected to trust "opinion leaders" and "opinion shapers" who tell them how to vote and why. Often disinformation shapes elections more than scientific evidence, facts, math, or reason.
As we build blockchain technology I think it is critical that we put great emphasis on data analytics. Data analytics will allow our leaders to make better decisions on our behalf. Blockchain technology will have to rely on data analytics to figure out potential wants and needs of it's participants, users, e-citizens, etc. At the same time private communication will be a necessity even if just to conduct surveys. The reason is people will not necessarily provide their real opinion in a survey which is completely transparent. The only solution I could find to the problem of preference falsification is privacy.
Most important of all is those who are put into positions of leadership are in trusted positions. This includes people who are moderators at forums, people who are lead developers, people who run exchanges. People who are in these positions have the responsibility to serve the blockchain community to the best of their ability. The abuse of these positions for personal power or personal gain is a violation of this trust and in these instances the community can and should select someone else for that position.
Bulbulia, J., & Sosis, R. (2011). Signalling theory and the evolution of religious cooperation. Religion, 41(3), 363-388.
Davis, W. L. (2004). Preference falsification in the economics profession. Econ Journal Watch, 1(2), 359.
Frank, R. H. (1996). The Political Economy of Preference Falsification: Timur Kuran's Private Truths, Public Lies. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1), 115-123.
Grimm, P. (2010). Social desirability bias. Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing.
Sîrbu, A., Loreto, V., Servedio, V. D., & Tria, F. (2017). Opinion dynamics: models, extensions and external effects. In Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Awareness (pp. 363-401). Springer, Cham.
It's Thursday and I'm back, guys.
It's been long time, but here I'm again :)
This post theme was getting ripe in my head for long time. Something like since 2014.
Recently I got some data to put together the stepping stones for turning my mere suspicion into more of a grounded conclusion.
The problem was that it was also growing in width and depth with time, so here you are a momentary snapshot or sketch-map of it, which I intend to elaborate further on.
I'll start with shooting two slogan-missiles which constitute super-compression of lotsa research and which will be revisited soon in separate series of articles.
Trust is Force
''you trust 'em only as much as you can make 'em to...''
Money is Mnemonics
yes, precisely THIS is the core essence and function of ANY monetary system - (even the primordial barter one with its naturally emerging special tokens ,  to mitigate its intrinsic exponential wall  of unscalabiliuty , ) - to account or remember human activity. That is, money is always work to prove work. Basically we need to remember due to impossibility of simultaneity of transactions.
Which I already went over ... and, I beg your pardon. Three, not two slogans. The third one is:
Law is Between, Code is Within
Will explain later what I mean  and how it ties up with the former two. In a nutshell is about the enforceability as essential characteristic of all law and now will just hint that the reason why Force (coercion) is deemed to be fundamentally non-decentralizable is the Pauli exclusion principle  which is kinda ''location conservation law'' .
You already know ,  my taste for epystemological 'archaeology', that's why I think it is better to carry the story on in chronological order.
Back in 2014 I stumbled upon series of extremely astute and deep thought articles , , , ,  on the cost of several well known monetary systems in comparison with Bitcoin, which just has been grown enough to become visible for unaided eye.
I remember I discovered these great articles by the obviously great Hass McCook in the wake of the MtGox ,  boom and bust aftershock, when huge anxiety about the 'wastefullness' of the Bitcoin mining was reigning the public sentiment. (It happens everytime the price nears the production cost).
The search of mine which hit those was driven by the quite legitimate question of:
''If crypto is wasteful, then how much the traditional fiat costs us, god damn it?''
Well, the comparison turned up, as I suspected, not at all in favor neither of the quite recent demetalized fractalized-centralized double-entry book-keeping debts mnemonincs of the banknotes monetary system, nor in favor of the millennia old 'heavy metal' single-entry money where the physical possession of gold/silver denotes your purchase power...
And it occured it was not at all just about costs of mining, refining, casting, ink, printing press, storage, accounting, counterfaiting countermeasures, ... but the bill to pay includes also all the social infrastructure and capital devoted on the making the system to work, and to be kept ticking ...
Essentially all which is know as ... government. All its buildings, all its sallaried humans, all their guns, pens, pensions, courts, judges and bailiffs ... everything.
All that needed in order a common Ledger to be built, maintained, broadcasted and kept. The difference between government and governance is obvious - the former is the means to an end, the later is the end. The former is the machine, the later is the function.
Here is the place to insert three other quick notions which are in the pipeline for revisiting and furnishing with separate articles.:
Firstly, Mnemonics is subject of big evolutionary/development forces just as anything else into the combinatorial explosion which the universe, nature, society is ...
You noticed above the notion of money emergence kinda coinciding with writing? The Sumerian example.
Writing is mnemonics amplifier . Just like the combustion engines are transportation boosters .
The better memory and memory sharing system we have on our disposal the better money we have.
Money is technology .
Secondly, any book-keeping - regardless whether we write by hand on cave wall or papyri, or by blade on a wooden stick, or by most sophisticated laser-quantum methods on most sophisticated multi-dimensional crystals  - is, yeah, a function of writing. We can go even further and state that illiterate verbal folklore - the only thing we got for millions of years - is form of verbal writing onto each other's short-term/long-term memories, just like photography and sound recording is.
The important thing to note here is that in the light of ''Money is Mnemonics'' spell of mine - the accountancy systems do possess cardinality of entries , , .
And it seems that the mega-trend is:
''the more entries handled = the better our money is''
Fiat one - monetary and overall - is double-entry based and relies upon import of trust, blockchain is tripple-entry and trust is built-in. Blockchain is not 'trustless' but is 'autotrophic'  in regards with trust.
The third notion turns us back on track with the main theme of this article. It is that of the mutual entropy .
The Ledger, no matter which tech it uses to be, has as purpose to define how the individual people's acivity has to be limited for the sake of collective cooperation and collaboration.
The Ledger - product of the particular kind of Mnemonics in play - literally SHAPES and MAKES the society.
As kinda Sorites  or Holon  or Mereonomic  ... generator.
NOW, which costs more? Which one is more wasteful of all the known Ledger or Mnemonic or Monetary systems known?
Literally couple of days ago I stumbled upon ''The $29 trillion cost of trust'' from 24 Jul 2018 by Sinclair Davidson, Mikayla Novak and Jason Potts , which made this long time in the making article to come out.
Now I finally have put my eyes on some numbers to juggle with.
The ecumenical  or midgardic  GDP is evaluated on roughly rounded up ~$100t p.a.
There is lots of well grounded criticism  on the ability of the present day fiat financial system to actually manage to encompass and measure it all - but lets take this conditional good round figure for the global GDP.
The total wealth of ~quarter of $Quadrillion (giving total average depriciation / consumption rate of over a third per year).
GDP evaluates the dynamic part. The work.
Almost 1/3rd of all work is devoted to account for or to prove the work!
Visualize the fiat system as a primitive, primordial, predeluvial or perecursor form of PoW .
Funny enough this ~1/3rd global proof-of-work or mnemoic or governance cost strangely coincides with the energy budget of the brain  as fraction of the total energy a human body dissipates to live.
The last two pieces of research argumentation to close the topic are.:
I'm trully impressed by the depth of these two documents. It is as big as - each sentence backed by several book volumes of profound research.
Paul Sztorc convincingly demonstrates that PoW is the most efficient protocol for decentralization or 'trustlessness'. It appears that 'PoW is the cheapest' not only among the blockspace  but also cheapest everywhere and everywhen.
Mr. Game and Watch evaluates that if in the present day 100-ish $Trills strong global economy there was nothing but Bitcoin as a form of money - the value of a single BTC would be worth millions of $.
''Banknote waste diﬀers from other types of monetary waste in that it is much harder to perceive, by virtue of the complex nature of banknote creation. In contrast, Bitcoin mining directly consumes electricity, and gold mining obviously requires engineers, machinery, armed guards and so forth. At ﬁrst glance, it seems incredible that impoverished hunter-gatherers would devote some of their precious time to the manufacture of silly beads and shells and other collectibles. And, it seems wasteful indeed, that we humans use our powerful brains primarily to obsess over what other people think of us. All of these activities are wasteful,in a narrow sense, but in a broader sense they maintain the infrastructure required to promote and sustain cooperation. These are social activities – we engage in them because we are not alone.''
Apparently monetary system which involves humans to function is unscalable. In the preTau. It is far easier and unlimited as capacity to grow our electricity and machinery resources, than to replicate humans. 
Intuitively, the lower the Cost of Trust the stronger the society, the bigger and with higher acceleration is the growth of the economy, the higher is the affluence and wealth. , , , , , .
If hypothetically the Cost of Trust is zero, the value of the economy will be infinite?
The endogenous automation of production and distribution of trust which the blockchain enables many orders of magntitude lowering of the cost of trust, compared with the present hand-driven system. (As an example - Satoshi himself posited aka 'payment channels'  and Lightning Network  and such promise hundreds of thousands of times smaller transaction costs all internal to the trusltessness environment of blockchain without to rely upon human work to prove work ...)
At the end, what has Tauchain in common with that all?
Well, lotsa things. I'm light years if not infinitely far from any generalization and systematization, but here you are an improvised list ... of questions :
Please, you continue ...
 - https://www.thoughtco.com/clay-tokens-mesopotamian-writing-171673
 - http://www.ancientpages.com/2017/07/08/intriguing-sumerian-clay-tokens-ancient-book-keeping-system-used-long-writing-appeared/
 - https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02572
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/scaling-is-layering
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-transcaling
 - http://www.behest.io/ & https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/behest-for-tauchain
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
 - https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@karov/bitcoin-retrodictions
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/geodesic-by-tau
 - https://www.coindesk.com/microscope-true-costs-gold-production/
 - https://www.coindesk.com/microscope-real-costs-dollar/
 - https://www.coindesk.com/microscope-true-costs-banking/
 - https://www.coindesk.com/microscope-economic-environmental-costs-bitcoin-mining/
 - https://thebitcoin.pub/t/under-the-microscope-conclusions-on-the-costs-of-bitcoin/44457
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox
 - https://oracletimes.com/mt-gox-bitcoin-whale-trustee-seized-selling-bitcoin-btc/
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-the-hanson-engine
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-as-szabo-booster
 - https://winklevosscapital.com/money-is-broken-but-its-future-is-not/
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5D_optical_data_storage
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-entry_bookkeeping_system
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-entry_bookkeeping_system
 - https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/triple-entry-bookkeeping-bitcoin-1392069656/
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotroph
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology
 - https://medium.com/@cryptoeconomics/the-29-trillion-cost-of-trust-be8ffbd5788d
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midgard
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system
 - http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237
 - http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
 - https://www.scribd.com/document/354688866/Bitcoin-A-5-8-Million-Valuation-Crypto-Currency-and-A-New-Era-of-Human-Cooperation
 - http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/blockspace-demand/
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/tau-through-the-moravec-prism
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/masa-effect-with-tauchain
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tutor-ex-machina
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics
 - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
 - https://lightning.network/
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-in-the-algoverse
 - http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/ & https://orionsarm.com/fm_store/Population.pdf
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory
“We are moving into an era where cities will matter more than states and supply chains will be a more important source of power than militaries — whose main purpose will be to protect supply chains rather than borders. Competitive connectivity is the arms race of the 21st century.”
-- Parag Khanna , 
A network is made of lines and switches, right?
Lots have been told about the network scaling effects , including attempts by myself [4-12] ... which compels me to introduce the not so frivolous notion of network forces.
These forces are expressed in several laws. I though initially to say 'forces' and 'laws' here, but I realize they are quite objective and physical emergenta , indeed.
In my ''Geodesic by Tauchain''  article of about couple of months ago I emphasized over the Huber-Hettinga Law , of how cost of switching literally defines the 'orographic'  topology of a network .
The cheaper the routing - the flatter the network.
Expensive switches = hierarchy, verticality, power, control, obey, centalization, 'world is fiat' ,, sollen , hence borders instead of bridges, limitations not stumulae, exclusivity ...
Cheap switching = geodesic society , 'world is flat', horizontality, p2p, decentralization, inclusivity ...
The more vertical by centralization a network is - the more it must deplete information - to omit, to ignore calls from the deeps or to even actively suppress or silence nodes. To cope with the stream by strangling it. Simply due to lesser capacity, less degrees of freedom . Geodesic networks possess higher entropy  and therefore are richer. They bolster higher both Scrooge  and Spawn  factors. With other words:
The flatter the network - the richer  it is.
Maybe the explanation on why the wealthiest-healthiest societies tend to be those who are with biggest economic-political freedom. 
Naturally the Huber-Hettinga Law led me to the elementary-watson  conclusion of the power and value of Tau as the ultimate über -switch. So far so good.
Now lets stare in the Lines. Here comes Nick Szabo .
Nick Szabo - a lawyer AND computer scientist - is a legendary figure from the great 'Archaic era of crypto'  - the 1990es when he, together with the other cypherpunk  titans like Tim May , Wei Dai , Bob Hettinga  etc. etc., poured the very baserock foundations in a staggering detail of what we enjoy now as Crypto  in the post-Satoshi  era.
It is THEIR vision came true we all now live in.
Bitcoin was a detonation of namely that critical mass of fused thoughts, of namely these very smart people, piled up and compressed by the connective network forces of the early internet .
No, I do not mean at all Szabo's most famous thing - the 1994 coining of the term of 'smart contracts' . In fact I deeply and strongly reject the very notion of 'smart contracts' - as utter non-sense, even as an oxymoron - which is an yuge separate problem, which I suspect that I nailed it, and I'll address in series of dedicated articles starting in the upcoming weeks...
I mean something much more valuable, what I call the Szabo Law.
When we hear the phrase 'networking effects' the first what comes to mind is the famous Metcalfe law .
''Metcalfe's Law is related to the fact that the number of unique connections in a network of a number of nodes (n) can be expressed mathematically as the triangular number n(n − 1)/2, which is proportional to n2 asymptotically (that is, an element of BigO(n2)).''
In the above order of appearance these network forces laws respect quantitatively the basic properties of a network as:
- Huber-Hettinga Law - the cost of switches and routing.
- Metcalfe Law - the number of nodes, i.e. switches defining the number of unique connections or lines.
- Szabo Law - the cost of the lines and connecting.
All these Laws are scaling ,  laws. Before we to come back to and continue on Szabo Law, we have to briefly mention another one .:
''So what is “scaling”? In its most elemental form, it simply refers to how systems respond when their sizes change. What happens to cities or companies if their sizes are doubled? What happens to buildings, airplanes, economies, or animals if they are halved? Do cities that are twice as large have approximately twice as many roads and produce double the number of patents? Should the profits of a company twice the size of another company double? Does an animal that is half the mass of another animal require half as much food?'' ... With Dirk Helbing (a physicist, now at ETH Zurich) and his student Christian Kuhnert, and later with Luis Bettencourt (a Los Alamos physicist now an SFI Professor), Jose Lobo (an economist, now at ASU), and Debbie Strumsky (UNC-Charlotte), we discovered that cities, like organisms, do indeed exhibit “universal” power law scaling, but with some crucial differences from biological systems.Infrastructural measures, such as numbers of gas stations and lengths of roads and electrical cables, all scale sublinearly with city population size, manifesting economies of scale with a common exponent around 0.85 (rather than the 0.75 observed in biology). More significantly, however, was the emergence of a new phenomenon not observed in biology, namely, superlinear scaling: socioeconomic quantities involving human interaction, such as wages, patents, AIDS cases, and violent crime all scale with a common exponent around 1.15. Thus, on a per capita basis, human interaction metrics (which encompass innovation and wealth creation) systematically increase with city size while, to the same degree, infrastructural metrics manifest increasing savings. Put slightly differently: with every doubling of city size, whether from 20,000 to 40,000 people or 2M to 4M people, socioeconomic quantities – the good, the bad, and the ugly – increase by approximately 15% per person with a concomitant 15% savings on all city infrastructure-related costs.
Which probably comes to denote the shear size of the network in STEM (space, time, energy, mass) , I'm not sure, but I have some strong suspicions about the unity of matter, structure and action which I will expose and share some other time.
What I call Szabo's Law reveals in his ''Transportation, divergence, and the industrial revolution''(Thu, Oct 16, 2014)  that similarly to Metcalfe's (''double the population, quadruple the economy'') there is power-law  correlation between the cost of connections or links or lines ... and the value of the network, too.:
''Metcalfe's Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes. In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed. The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation. Combine this with Metcalfe's Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables. This formalizes Adam Smith's observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).''
My encounter with this article of Nick Szabo's was a goosebumps experience for me, cause it coincided with series of lay rants of mine on the old Zennet irc chat room of Tau that ''computation =communication =transportation''. Somewhere in 2016 as far as I remember. :)
Maybe it was the last drop to shape my conviction that by my dedicated involvement in both Tau and ET3 , , , I'm actually working for ... one and a same project.
For communication, computation and transportation being modes of state change. Cause information is a verb, not a noun. And software being states of hardware.
''Decentralizing the internet is possible only with decentralized physical infrastructure.'' 
Just like the brain is a network computer of neuron nanocomputers , the emergent composite we colloquially call humanity or mankind or economy or society or world ... is a network computer made of all us billions of humans.
Brains do thought, economies do wealth.
Integrated circuitry  upon the face of planet Earth as a motherboard . Literally. The Humanity's planet-hardware. Parag Khanna's Connectography explained.
The Earth is definitely not our ultimate chip carrier . Probably there ain't limit at all of our culture-upon-nature hardware upgrades, see: , . The universe is our computronium  and we've been here for too short and haven't seen far enough. Networking is connectomics . And thus it always also is metabolomics .
Remember my last month's  ''Tauchain the Hanson Engine''?
The series of exponentially shortened growth doubling times looks like driven by transportation technological singularities : domestication of the horse, oceanic navigation, combustion engine ...
In the light of all the net forces summoned above: The planet Earth viewed as a giant computer chip ...
- itself is a subject of the relentless network entropic  force of the Moore's law 
The network forces accelerate what that wealth computer does.
Two quick examples:
A.: The $1500 sandwich  as a proof that trade+production is at least thousands of times stronger in sandwich-making than production alone.
B.: The example of Eric Beinhocker in his 2006 ''The Origin of Wealth''  about the two contemporary tribes of the Amazonian Yanomami  - a stone age population nowadays and the Eastcoastian Manhattanites . That the former are only about 100 times poorer, but the later enjoy billions of times bigger choice of things to have.
Tauchain 'threatens' to affect the parameters of ALL the network forces formulae mentioned herewith in a mind-bogglingly big scale.
Simultaneously, orders of magnitude :
- lower switch cost
- higher nodes count 
- lower connection cost
A wealth hypercane  recipe. Perfect value storm. Future ain't what it used to be .
The power of ambiguity and of ambiguity minimization in communication. By Dana Edwards on Steemit. June 1, 2018.
Formal communication benefits from ambiguity minimization.
So what exactly do I mean by formal communication? Well when we think of how human beings communicate with machines it is in a formal language. This formal language requires minimized ambiguity for security analysis (how can we analyze code if we cannot effectively interpret it?). The other problem is that the machines require for example that if... then... else and similar conditional statements are well defined and unambiguous.
Is it possible to show that a grammar is unambiguous?
To show a grammar is unambiguous you have to argue that for each string in the language there is only one derivation tree. This is how it would be done theoretically speaking.
In computer science, an ambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which there exists a string that can have more than one leftmost derivation or parse tree, while an unambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which every valid string has a unique leftmost derivation or parse tree. Many languages admit both ambiguous and unambiguous grammars, while some languages admit only ambiguous grammars.
Specifically we know that deterministic context free grammars must be unambiguous. So we know unambiguous grammars exist. It appears the strategy is ambiguity minimization with regard to formal languages (such as computer programming languages).
For computer programming languages, the reference grammar is often ambiguous, due to issues such as the dangling else problem. If present, these ambiguities are generally resolved by adding precedence rules or other context-sensitive parsing rules, so the overall phrase grammar is unambiguous. The set of all parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a parse forest.
The parse forest is an important concept to note. All possible parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a "parse forest". This concept is key to understanding the strategy of ambiguity minimization. So we can in practice minimize ambiguity and we know for certain that deterministic context free grammars admit an unambiguous grammar but what does that mean? What are the benefits of unambiguous language in general?
A benefit of ambiguity minimization
Simple English is a form of controlled English designed to minimize ambiguity in English. This is important because by using simple English to codify the rules or write the laws it puts it in a language where there is less of a computational expense (in brain power) to process and interpret the statements.
In one of my older blogposts @omitaylor commented and in one of her future posts she asked about the topic of love. In specific her post was titled: "What Does LOVE Mean To YOU"
Her post highlights the fact that there are different love languages and that we don't all speak the same love language. Ambiguity here is actually not a good thing but the simple fact is when someone speaks about love how do we know they are talking about the same thing? As a result we often seek an agreed upon or formally defined "love concept" where we all agree it's love. This is not trivial to find and as a result a topic like love is not easy to discuss in any serious manner. Unambiguous communication or to be more precise (minimized ambiguity) would allow Alice to discuss with Bob the topic of love in a way where they both know exactly what the other is referring to in terms of behavioral expectations, emotions/feelings, etc.
If Alice agrees to love Bob then Bob has no way to determine what Alice means unless he and she agree on a mutually defined concept of love. This highlights how agreement requires very good communication and how minimizing ambiguity can be beneficial at least in this example.
Ambiguity minimization makes sense when you are following a principle of computational kindness. That is if Alice would like to reduce the computational burden on Bob then she can reduce or minimize the ambiguity of her sentence. This is because in order for Bob to interpret an ambiguous sentence Bob must in essence sort all possible interpretations of that sentence from most likely interpretation to least likely interpretation, and before he can even sort he must first search in order to find all possible or at least plausible interpretations.
This is very computationally expensive for Bob but very cheap for Alice. Alice knows exactly what she means but Bob has no clue what Alice REALLY means.
A benefit of ambiguity
There are other examples where increasing ambiguity could be beneficial, such as perhaps when the communication is less than formal, or to share a stream of consciousness without turning it into a formal communication. Humor for example rides on ambiguity and a good joke may have multiple layers. Art also leverages ambiguity because it's perhaps meant to be interpreted 20 different ways all to produce a certain desired affect.
Ambiguity allows more meaning to be packed into fewer words. This in a sense is a sort of compression scheme. So if a sentence has multiple possible meanings the levels or meanings are still finite. It's a fixed amount of meanings and so theoretically speaking a search can be conducted. In fact this is what a human being does when interpreting natural language where a sentence can have multiple meanings (they do a search for all possible interpretations of that sentence). The problem with this is that it is computationally expensive as a process at least for the human being to try to figure out all possible interpretations of a sentence.
Lawyers when they do their work are working with a specific knowledge base of common legal sentences and common interpretations known in their profession but the rest of us might see a sentence in lawyer-speak and not really know what it means because we will not know the common interpretations. This is a big problem of course because to form agreements between two parties both parties need to have a common understanding (a kind of knowledge symmetric understandability) allowing them both to interpret roughly the same sentence to mean the same thing.
Logo by CapitanArt
Enlaces / Links
Logo by CapitanArt
Archivos / Archives
Suggested readings to better understand the Tau ecosystem, Tau Meta Language, Tau-Chain and Agoras, and collaborate in the development of the project.
Lecturas sugeridas para entender mejor el ecosistema Tau, Tau Meta Lenguaje, Tau-Chain y Agoras, y colaborar en el desarrollo del proyecto.