Tauchain Update: Significant code changes in Github and discussion of progress. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. September 30, 2018.
Just several hours ago lead developer and founder of the Tauchain project Ohad Asor released his most significant code update yet. This blog post will be to discuss some of those updates and put it into context. In order to make sense of the current codebase : "Tauchain Codebase" I will also discuss a bit about the makeup of the code.
The significant breakthrough - Ohad implements the BDD
First some might be wondering what is BDD? BDD is a data structure called binary decision diagram. This data structure in my opinion is as significant to Tauchain as the "blockchain" data structure was to Bitcoin. For those who do not have a computer science degree I will elaborate on what exactly a data structure is below before discussing what a BDD is and why it is so significant.
Brief discussion on what a data structure is
In programming a data structure is a concept which represents a data organization method. For example blockchain is all about how records are stored as blocks. There are other similar data structures which represent decentralized data management and storage such as for instance the distributed hash table data structure.
A blockchain data structure looks like this for visualization:
By Matthäus Wander [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons
A hash table looks like this for a visual:
By Jorge Stolfi [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons
The really good programmers choose the appropriate data structure to meet the requirements of the project. BDD was chosen specifically by Ohad because it provides efficiency boosts in a key area necessary for Tauchain to function as intended. In specific we know Tauchain requires partial fixed point logic in order to have decidability in P-SPACE. We also know Tauchain requires decentralization and efficiency. Efficiency can be understood better in terms of the trade off between time and space. We do not have unlimited time or space so we must sacrifice one in order to get more of the other.
When we look at the code base we know that Ohad can optimize the code either by sacrificing space in which the executable will be bigger (but the code runs faster) or he can choose to sacrifice time in which the code is a smaller executable to save memory but might run slightly slower. This highlights the essential trade off between time and space when optimizing code but of course there is more to it because algorithms within a code base have to make similar trade offs.
Now what exactly is a BDD (binary decision diagram)?
Now that we understand the basics about efficiency and what a data structure is we can make a bit more sense of what a BDD is. In order to understand why BDD as a data structure is so important to Tauchain we have to remember that Tauchain is about logic. We can take the most basic example of Socrates:
A predicate takes an entity or entities in the domain of discourse as input while outputs are either True or False. Consider the two sentences "Socrates is a philosopher" and "Plato is a philosopher". In propositional logic, these sentences are viewed as being unrelated and might be denoted, for example, by variables such as p and q. The predicate "is a philosopher" occurs in both sentences, which have a common structure of "a is a philosopher". The variable a is instantiated as "Socrates" in the first sentence and is instantiated as "Plato" in the second sentence. While first-order logic allows for the use of predicates, such as "is a philosopher" in this example, propositional logic does not.
Based on the rules of first order logic we can have our inputs and receive our outputs. In the most basic example above we an see a bit about how logic works. To elaborate further:
Relationships between predicates can be stated using logical connectives. Consider, for example, the first-order formula "if a is a philosopher, then a is a scholar". This formula is a conditional statement with "a is a philosopher" as its hypothesis and "a is a scholar" as its conclusion. The truth of this formula depends on which object is denoted by a, and on the interpretations of the predicates "is a philosopher" and "is a scholar".
A truth table has one column for each input variable (for example, P and Q), and one final column showing all of the possible results of the logical operation that the table represents (for example, P XOR Q). Each row of the truth table contains one possible configuration of the input variables (for instance, P=true Q=false), and the result of the operation for those values. See the examples below for further clarification. Ludwig Wittgenstein is often credited with inventing the truth table in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, though it appeared at least a year earlier in a paper on propositional logic by Emil Leon Post.
When we are dealing with logic we may find that a truth table helps with visualization.
Now with this knowledge we have the most basic Socrates example:
This can be represented via truth table and is called a syllogism. To solve this we simply apply a kind of reasoning called deductive reasoning. This would indicate that if All men are mortal is true and if Socrates is a man is also true then Socrates is a mortal must be true. If we were to say all men are mortal but Socrates is immortal then Socrates cannot be a man. So if Socrates is a man he must be moral or there is what we call a contradiction. Logic is all about avoiding these sorts of contradictions and in specific binary or boolean logic is to reach a conclusion which always must be one of two possible values.
If I ask you to play a game which we want to guarantee will end with either one of two possible outcomes then we have a good example of a boolean function. 1 or 0, true or false, on or off, a or b.
Some of you may be familiar with data structure we call a DAG (directed acyclic graph). For those of you who understand this concept you can visualize a BDD as being very similar to a propositional DAG.
By David Eppstein [CC0], from Wikimedia Commons
We know from DAGs that it's a finite amount of vertices, edges, etc. We may also be able to visualize topological ordering and if you remember my post on transitive closure you might also remember the visuals on how that can work:
A binary decision diagram can represent a truth table:
By The original uploader was IMeowbot at English Wikipedia. (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons
And from these visuals now it should be abundantly clear how this is critical to the functioning of Tauchain. The BDD data structure allows for efficient model checking as well. To understand we have to consider the boolean satisfiability problem.
This highlights the fact that BDD can be used to create a SAT solver.
A DPLL SAT solver employs a systematic backtracking search procedure to explore the (exponentially sized) space of variable assignments looking for satisfying assignments. The basic search procedure was proposed in two seminal papers in the early 1960s (see references below) and is now commonly referred to as the Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland algorithm ("DPLL" or "DLL"). Theoretically, exponential lower bounds have been proved for the DPLL family of algorithms.
Without getting overwhelmed by technical details the key points are below:
To read the code for yourself and track the progress of Tauchain development take a look at Github:
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 .
''Tau solves the problems from the Tower of Babel to the Tower of Basel''
- an early 21st century yet undisclosable author
Okay, dearest friends, lets pull sleeves up and start with it. Vivisection of the Scriptures? Revelation by transfiguration? Pulling the Tau from the ocean of wisdom out on the dry no-Maths-land? I hope not.
The quote above on first glance sounds so pompously biblical, but in fact it denotes the crystal clear and simple practical and mundane rationale of Tau which I already tried to approach from few angles , .
It is about the hierarchic bottleneck of one unscaling ,  Humanity. Take the hint about leveling of the Towers as a poetic symbol of elimination of the social 'verticality' -- the hierarchies as a so far necessary evil to compensate certain innate neurological limitations , , ,  -- and reforming  the network we are embedded into and usually call mankind or society or economy or world into an as geodesic as possibly possible one . For the sake of its own functional programmatic optimization .
Notice that towers leveling is not by demolition, but by uplifting the overall landscape level to and above the tower tops, turning them into deep roots or support pylons of asymptotically geodesic society .
Apparently, mentioning the Gate of God  denotes the unmixing  of languages & mentioning the apex global fiat settlement institution  - the excelling of the current fiat procrustics  i.e. the economy aspect.
That is: TML to Agoras . The first and last of the totally six identified aspects or steps of the social choice  as addressed by what we call Tau.
''our six steps of language, knowledge, discussion, collaboration, choice, and knowledge economy''
These aspects deserve of course separate zoom-in exegetic chapters and they'll definitely get it. I promise. And not only they.
Any exegesis of Tau unavoidably must start with scroll back and tracking down of the full history of the development so far. As a zoom out to see the full picture and to identify the dominant features of the landscape relief.
You, I reckon, already noticed this retrodictive inclination of mine , that in my mind the notion of ''Timeline of Development'' can not be by any logic just a handful of milestone promises thrown into the future, but it is a must to account for the up to now trajectory, too! No future without past.
It all started as Zennet , continued as Tau-chains  and 'turned' into aka 'newtau' , , , .
Wait! A New Tau?
Excuse me, Ohad, but I personally do not buy that and I said it many times. There ain't old and new Tau. The situation is much more straightforward and grokkable . Here it is:
Lotsa guts, balls, butt, brains or whatever human offal... is required for each of us to admit a mistake made in our everyday life. Generally quite a strength is needed to even look ourselves into the mirror...
It takes a whole Ohad though, to keep all oneself's work totally public and transparent even on the full and unedited live record of the infil  into entire branch of mathematics  and then throwing it all away as untauful. We witnessed that reported in real time!
Did this change the ends? No. But sorted out the means to an end.
Was it a 'mistake'? In no case. It was duly delivered R&D effort.
Was oldtau looking promising on first glance? Yes, of course it did.
Did it survive the Ohad's R&D 'crash-testing'? No, it didn't.
Was it a ''juice worth the sqweeze''? It was.
Was it a job well done? Absolutely.
The oldtau materials are for me legacy jewels. Like those dinosaur bugs trapped into blobs of amber .
Development is a process, not just results shipping. Related like cooking and serving.
Studying the zoom-out dev map we observe these few major landmarks:
The Zennet province is all right. Its gently rolling hills gradually merge into the Tau lands proper with the inevitable realization that a 'world supercomputer' can not be a Tauless thing. Zennet lives in Tau with .:
''... having a decentralized search engine requires Zennet-like capabilities, the ability to fairly rent (and rent-out) computational resources, under acceptable risk in the user's terms (as a function of cost). Our knowledge market will surely require such capabilities, and is therefore one of the three main ingredients of Agoras... hardware rent market...''
We move over through the oldtau wastelands  where the burnt ruins of MLTT  lie scattered - rough oldtau location-on-the-map indicator is the fall of 2015 with
''Tau as a Generalized Blockchain'' - posted Oct 17, 2015, 6:33 AM [updated Oct 17, 2015, 6:49 AM]
and then we reach the fertile gardens of newtau  in the fall of 2017:
''The New Tau'' - posted Dec 31, 2017, 12:27 AM [updated Dec 31, 2017, 12:28 AM]
Hmm. Apparently we crossed a watershed. Which relief feature it was? - The ridge  of:
''Tau and the Crisis of Truth'' - posted Sep 10, 2016, 8:25 PM [updated Sep 10, 2016, 8:28 PM]
Tau sorts out the Towers. I hope that the synopsis in this short chapter of Exegesis helped to sort out Tau dev in time as a navigation lookup tool.
Software is nothing but states of hardware. There is that intimate deep, not yet codified into a neat compact of logic, connection between Gödel , Heisenberg  and Laws of thermodynamics .
Tau keeps us off these traps.
I do not dare to state that someday we won't have the command on infinities and to play with them with the ease  of
''... a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.''
In fact, quite the opposite I'd rather take it as inevitability someday we to conquer the Cantor  expanses and to venture far even beyond that. To transcale  the transfinite. Like Hilbert  said it.:
''Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können. (From the paradise, that Cantor created for us, no-one can expel us.)''
But it takes ... finitary vehicles of DECIDABILITY to conquer the transfinitary outer spaces. Because, in order to dear to dream to tame the infinities, we must first harness and get full command of finities.
Including of ourselves. Tau is ''understanding each other''. Without Tau we are ... others to ourselves.
Imperare sibi maximum imperium est.
Personal agents: What are expert systems? Do expert systems benefit from decentralization. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. March 28, 2017.
Personal agents: What are expert systems? Do expert systems benefit from decentralization?
In my previous blog post titled "The value of Knowledge Representation and the Decentralized Knowledge Base for Artificial Intelligence (expert systems)" I discussed the first piece of a larger puzzle. Knowledge representation and a shared knowledge base were both explained. The purpose of that blogpost was to destribe the concepts of knowledge representation and the knowledge base but also to show why both are valuable for artificial intelligence. This particular article will explain the concept of an expert system and then I will discuss some possible ideas for what can be built in a decentralized AI context.
The recipe for building an expert system
An expert system has two core components which include 1) a knowledge base, 2) an inference engine (semantic reasoner). An expert system is a computer system which emulates the decision making capability of a human expert by reasoning about knowledge and applying rules. Implication for example is a rule which leads to if...then... (otherwise recognized as if p then q). In a computer programming language we would call this set of "if then" statements our [conditionals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_%28computer_programming%29) . Conditionals are familiar to anyone who knows C, C++, JAVA, Python, or any typical programming language and this basic structure comes from logic.
We can recognize that conditionals are a set of rules which can be mapped on a flow chart like this:
Expert systems are rule based AI
Just as we can see how if-then-else can become a structure of rules, the expert systems are entirely rule based.
An expert system which has a knowledge base to work with may rely on a goal tree.
Expert systems are fundamentally weak AI. They cannot be self aware or conscious as they are simply mechanical sets of rules being applied according to logic on a knowledge base. Expert systems may exhibit intelligent behavior which is to say they are intelligent tools. This may be enough however to achieve the goals and you can have personal agents which can behave intelligently using an expert system approach.
Trees, trees, and more trees
Now we know how to create an expert system built from a knowledge base and a reasoner. To understand what the future holds for decentralized AI I must briefly discuss the concept of trees. Trees can possibly be infinite structures. Higher order model checking for those familiar with model checking is a form of model checking which can work over infinite structures such as the infinite tree via higher order recursion schemes. Why is any of this important?
Program verification, program analysis, can work when you think of the fact that any program can be represented as a tree. This is important for the security guarantees and for correctness guarantees. In the case where you would like to approach decentralization of AI then you ultimately will have to work with trees and for that reason I discuss it.
Decentralized knowledge base + distributed contribution via knowledge representation language
In order to build a decentralized AI it will be important to have a decentralized knowledge base. The main problem is growing the knowledge base large enough that an expert system can become smart. In a decentralized context you can have in theory anyone in the world contribute to the collective decentralized knowledge base. Decentralization of the knowledge base would make it more resilient in the case of an attack, a nuclear apocalypse or similar scenarios like that which necessitated decentralization of the Internet. From a cyber security perspective human knowledge is safest if decentralized.
Sensors are essentially everywhere, big data is essentially here, but the decentralized knowledge base doesn't exist. We have Google which wants to be at best a centralized knowledge base. Google has AI but it will at best be centralized. A decentralized AI based on expert systems can function similar to that which has been described already as the semantic web but with some improvements.
Your own army of personal experts
If everything goes right in a decentralized context then each person will have access to intelligent agents. These agents will be able to reason over a knowledge base and act as an expert system. For very difficult tasks the computation resources could be rented and paid for via a token. Verified computation and model checking can allow for many machines to compute on your behalf but with a minimized security risk as you would have formal verification built in.
What is the conclusion here?
Expert systems can be built in a decentralized context. Decentralized AI is theoretically possible and likely to be built sooner or later. Decentralized AI can be safer than centralized depending on the use case and it can also be much more efficient depending on the circumstances. For example if computation can be sold on a market then in theory if a million PC owners rent their computation out for a token then you in essence have the cheapest super computer in the world. Will it be good at everything? Perhaps not, but for certain kinds of computation it will be the most cost effective.
Bots will become much more powerful, more capable, with an ability to be experts and make intelligent decisions. This will have both positive and negative consequences depending on the safe guards and governance capabilities in place. If there are no safe guards at all then this could be both a new frontier and present new dangers. At the same time if there are some safe guards and ethical governance then this could provide many new opportunities and possibly boost the economy in new ways. In fact, the ability to have this AI can improve not just reasoning ability, but decision making abilities too, and that can allow for moral augmentation along with improved governance.
Fuente / Source: Original post written by Dana Edwards. Published on Steemit: Personal agents: What are expert systems? Do expert systems benefit from decentralization.
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.