This topic is loaded in the barrel since - as I see in my draft records - April 2018. It is my free assotiations on the major topic of the aka ''tragedy of the commons''  refracted through the prism of things which I had to pass through with Tau  in mind. In the months it replicated itself into numerous subtopics and threatens to grow in several general theories  so I decided to better unleash it in the wild and to handle it with your help and if necessary to tame and domesticate it and its progeny by the coming power of Tau.
The problem of the 'tragedy of the commons' as a symptom of the more general theme of ownership .
I think I kinda nailed it. It seems this approach brings serious inference power, i.e. via it most of what we know can be derived. Of course it lacks mathematical / logical rigor, but still even on such haiku expression level seems to work.
Yes, there is such a word. In linguistics .
Per se, ''clusivity'' is modulus  of inclusion  and/or exclusion .
Absolute value in maths denotes 'distance' from zero, regardless of direction, which seems to translate well for depicting the spectrum between 'included' and 'excluded', if we imagine that excluded=-1 as the opposite of included=1, and zero measures state of equal clusion. The other, more intuitive and easier to grasp, way would be of the fuzzy logic  of zero to one fractional values, where zero is no clusivity, and one is full clusivity. Lets say we take one of the possible 'directions' and 0= complete exclusion, 1=complete inclusion ... multi-values in between.
Of course due to purely physical reasons 0 and 1 are asymptotic values - ever to approach, never to reach. And of course due to purely physical, finitist  reasons the clusivity fuzzy spectrum is quantized , not smoothly continuous .
Attending etymology usually pays off, because of two reasons:
Thus, we can visualize all languages as a single language, a continuum with mascons  of commonality of indexing-meaning pairs. Like a strange form of semantic entanglement  - to be inevitably hacked someday open and to give birth to endless valuable technologies...
What does this up to now have in common with Commons, Ownership and Tau?
Interestingly, the etymology of 'include'  automatically leads to its privatization-publicization functionality.
It is cognate with both.:
The private/public ''divide'' as key/access driven relation.
Do we ''have the keys''? Or ''are we'' the keys (given non-computerized 'face-control' type of access cases)?
NO. For any entity and for every access, the keys are not the entity or are not property of it.
Key is OUTPUT by us. Fed as INPUT into other systems, so they to perform.
Society can be imaged as a network of partially-black boxes  , where free will is function of the box certainty of autoreflection and trust is function of the uncertanty of other boxes behavior prediction ...
We do not know and in most cases can not know what's going on inside other peoples or organizations or other artifacts inner workings, but we know that by inserting Key we can make them to perform certain expected predicted action.
The boxes are said to be partially-black for the non-black part denoting the zone of predictability - i.e. ''if I input this into that black-box I know it will return to me this and that specifically''...
Key, be it biometrics, piece of shaped metal, digital string of bits ... a reason which causes, a input which brings the outcome of access to...
Important side note is that in the case of key-pair philosophy it is NOT two keys - public & private, but rather a (public) padlock  and THE (private) key , so everybody can lock it but only the key-owner can unlock it / access it.
You maybe have noticed one of my many times repeated slogans :
LAW IS BETWEEN, CODE IS WITHIN
, coming to delineate the map of Trust - i.e. where force is needed ( ''I trust you only as much as I can make you to'') and the self-enforcing systems of blockchain and god knows what else possible systems.
The whole picture is pretty insightful in both the blockchain and the trust (e.g. force)  context, when we realize that it is not so much about de jure, but purely de facto situation. Even when minding the Law. For, private-public being function of the performance and efficiency of the protocol. Incl. the key-making ones. Incl. the key-breaking ones.
On The Law and the related trust=enforcement relations to code and protocols, I'll go some other time in detail (actually lots of times because it seems the bunch of concepts here have lots of fruitful logical consequences), but the inevitable conclusion seems to be that it is in general a Clusivity thing even in the Legal case. For it is matter of accessing the output of compulsory legal action by inputting a ... key.
The recent EU intellectual law directive  is alphabetical example of the Fiat  approach of the external enforcement (as opposed to the cryptographic 'trustless' one). The Fiat way of enforcing ownership rights is also a Clusivity system. The subjects victims of property rights breach ACCESSES the authorities with their ID information, evidence, procedural codes and as output they have to receive enforcement actions vs the delinquents . The cost of trust  this way might be staggering and it is apparent that such a system may easily get clogged and to implosively unscale , .
Tau is mostly about knowledge economy. Economy without ownership ... is very hard, if not impossible to imagine. Like , where there ain't between anymore but everything is within, but even all white boxes system is prone to failures . Especially when we go past the veil of the ideological cliche definitions and take ''to own'' = ''to access'' in the purely factual, physical sense of the word.
In this sense each and every economy is a Clusivity management system.
Tau promises the ultimate Clusivity management.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
 - http://www.idni.org/
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/inclusion
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusion
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete
 - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/continuous
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_(disambiguation)
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphism
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy)
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/include
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
 - https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/87247/why-is-a-public-key-called-a-key-isnt-it-a-lock
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
 - http://www.behest.io/
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-and-the-cost-of-trust
 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/20/eu-votes-for-copyright-law-that-would-make-internet-a-tool-for-control
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delict
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/scaling-is-layering
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-transcaling
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer
 - The marvelous picture above is quoted from : https://www.deviantart.com/lora-zombie/art/LORA-ZOMBIE-THREADLESS-351467642
Tauchain and the privacy question (benefits of secret contracts and private knowledge). By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. August 21, 2018.
As we can see from the current trend in crypto there is now a move toward privacy. Most people underestimate in my opinion the utility of these cryptographic advances. In this blogpost I will highlight a particular advance enabled by these new cryptographic (and hardware techniques such as trusted execution environment) which can be of massive benefit to the long term believers in Tauchain.
The problem: Anyone can copy the code Ohad writes if it's open source
So we have a problem with Tauchain where all of the code Ohad is writing with regard to TML is open source and on Github. This allows a competitor to simply steal his best ideas and in a sense rob the token holders who actually funded the development of the code. This happens very often as we see a new innovation in the crypto space and soon later we see a new ICO or a new group come out of no where acting as if they originated the technology. In some cases the new group may even be much more centralized, more secretive, and very well funded.
The solution: Secret contracts (private source code and execution)
The trusted execution environment allows for the protection of intellectual property rights on the hardware level. While sMPC (secure multiparty computation) can also achieve similar ends on the software level. The idea being that this provides a solution to idea theft where a community can keep certain critical pieces of code, data, algorithms, or other unique features secret. This creates an entirely new way to monetize knowledge, code, and ideas, which Agoras will be uniquely positioned to leverage.
Guy Zyskind of the Enigma Project provides the definition for what secret contracts are and how they work. The Enigma Project deserves credit for introducing this technology and for identifying a major problem in the cryptospace. Traditionally on Ethereum or all other current platforms when you release a DApp your code has to be open source. It is not possible to create a closed or private source decentralized app. In addition the app has to be executed in the open so all data running through it is public.
Strategic implementation of private knowledge and source code can allow Tauchain to maintain a dominant position
In most cases the world benefits if knowledge is shared. In fact I'm in favor most of the time of sharing as much knowledge as is safe. The problem with algorithms, source code, and certain kinds of knowledge is that by sharing that knowledge it provides a competitive advantage to people who have more financial resources. These individuals can simply see Github and copy. They can hire programmers to compete with Tauchain and Agoras developers and as long as the code is open there will be no real reason to buy the Agoras token long term.
What if the Tauchain development team and Agoras developers decide to implement private knowledge bases? What if it becomes possible to run code in a trusted execution environment so that other developers around the world cannot see the code or the algorithms? This would allow Tauchain to build Agoras in such a way that no other project will be capable of duplicating it. This would lock in the value backed by the community brainpower into the Agoras token making it a true knowledge token which cannot simply by copied with ease by another project.
In fact this is a strategy that developers making apps using Enigma's Secret Contracts are looking into as we speak. This competitive advantage of secrecy will change the landscape of the cryptospace. What does this enable for Agoras? Imagine an encrypted Github which developers can contribute to but only the developers can see the code? Imagine after the code is written that no one else can see the code if the code is set to run privately? This would allow developers to code in secret and have the code run on computers without anyone knowing what the code is.
This can open up security vulnerabilities but Tauchain can defend against these. In particular it matters what is private and what is public. Critical aspects can be private while security critical areas can always be kept public. There may even be ways to prove that the code doesn't behave in a certain way without actually sharing the code (using advanced cryptography). In fact my favored way of implementing this feature would be to timelock the release of the source code by a number of months of years.
The idea isn't to keep things closed forever or secret forever. Privacy is about access control and about keeping things secret long enough to maintain a competitive advantage. A time delay to unlock the source code for example could work. It is even possible to allow the community to use puzzle based time lock encryption to have to mine to get the source code released early (if there is a serious need or threat). In this way all secret blocks of code could be unlockable but not for free and this would make it less likely that the community will seek to unlock it unless there is a genuine reason (beyond just to steal ideas).
What do you think about these ideas? If you agree with this or disagree then comment below. Strategic IP (intellectual property) is used by major corporations to give themselves a competitive advantage. The crypto community can do the same thing in ways the legal mechanisms can't do. In fact it can be done in a more fair and better way because often the people or companies awarded IP rights aren't the actual inventors. A knowledge economy is fantastic but if the knowledge is just harvested by big corporations monitoring the wide open network then it's going to be hard to bring value to a knowledge token.
UPDATE: Many people ask where to buy Agoras. The problem is it's not widely available on centralized exchanges. The only exchange I know that has it is Bitshares. So if anyone really wants to buy Agoras (AGRS) which is the token of discussion in this post feel free to buy it at:
42 million intermediate tokens total. Current price is: 0.00010700 BTC which is around 70 cents. This is the cheapest price I've seen it in a while because for a long time it was $1.50-$1.30 range. This is a very speculative token at this time so buy at your own risk as I'm not providing any financial advice. I'm a holder of this token of course and have been for years.
Puddu, I., Dmitrienko, A., & Capkun, S. (2017). μchain: How to Forget without Hard Forks. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2017, 106.
Kaptchuk, G., Miers, I., & Green, M. (2017). Managing Secrets with Consensus Networks: Fairness, Ransomware and Access Control. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2017, 201.
Retrodictive archaeology is so tempting. It is about what it was, what it is, what we knew and what we know.
Here I present another time travel glimpse of mine:
February 1998. Global Information Summit*. Japan. Robert Hettinga** - the patriarch of financial cryptography wrote:
My realization was, if Moore's Law creates geodesic communications networks, and our social structures -- our institutions, our businesses, our governments -- all map to the way we communicate in large groups, then we are in the process of creating a geodesic society. A society in which communication between any two residents of that society, people, economic entities, pieces of software, whatever, is geodesic: literally, the straightest line across a sphere, rather than hierarchical, through a chain of command, for instance.
A network scales according to the capacity of its switches.
Mankind is a network of interlinked humans routed by ... humans.
The network topology*** of society is dictated by our incapacity to switch - similarly to the way the penguins society is shaped by their inability to fly.
Running the Sorites paradox**** in reverse - humanity does not form a sand-heap by adding grains, but fractalizes into groupings of up to just a few individuals.*****
Big body of research on discussions persistently brings back the result that over a certain threshold of as little as 5 persons the number of possible social interactions explosively exceeds the participants capacity to handle the group traffic of information.
Increase the group size and the 'c factor' - the collective intelligence - abruptly implodes. Bellow the individual human level. So long 'wisdom of the crowd'.
Hierarchy is the only way we know (up to now) for a society to scale. Centralization as emergenta of organic switching limitations.
It is fair to say that we have and have had upscaling exosomatic prosthetics all the time.: language, writing, institutions, specialization... but at the end of the day even within these boosters the social switching is bottlenecked down to just a few humans-strong.
Since recently, cause, you know ... computers. Humans are not only lousy switches, but also tremendously expensive ones to make. Computers - the vice versa: their performance/cost relentlessly bigbangs.
Moore's law****** is not only about silicon wafers. It is a megatrend from the very dawn of the universe as Kurzweil noticed******* long time ago, which goes up and up across all computronium substrata imaginable or possible.
Non-human computation and automated communication promises to break the social scaling barrier.
Here comes the Ohad Asor's Tau.********
The only project I know which asks the correct questions and looks into doable solutions of humanity scaling. And the only meaningful identification and treatment of these problems which seems to lead towards fulfilling of Bob Hettinga's Geodesic visions from few decades ago.
Of course I do not know it all, but lets say that I intensively search the relevant space.
Tau transcends the human switching limitations in humane way. Without to amalgamate individuals out of existence, which some other discussed ways - like direct neural interfacing - seem to inevitably infer. For society is ... human beings.
What's the pragmatics of geodesic vs hierarchic?
What game really the 'flat' p2p networks beat the vertical social configurations into?
It is an easy answer. It is pure physics:
A Tauful geodesic society comprises IMMENSELY richer economy.
Metcalfe's (and Szabo's) law on max!
The combinatorial size of it vastly exceeds the possible arrangements of any traditional social 'pyramid'.
The maximum social diameter becomes ~1.
In fact, it seems quite an ancient archetypal vision, the whole thing:
“Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum.” Allan Ginsberg*********
1. *- http://www.nikkei.co.jp/summit/98summit/english/online/emlasia3.html (the second entry)
2. **- http://nakamotoinstitute.org/the-geodesic-market/
3. ***- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_topology
4. ****- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
5. *****- https://sheilamargolis.com/2011/01/24/what-is-the-optimal-group-size-for-decision-making/
9.*********- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net (image from: https://mindfulnessforhealing.com/2012/12/29/weaving-a-tapestry-of-wellness/ )
NOTE: I'm in the Tau Team, but this post expresses only my own associations and interpretations.
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.