Tauchain: The Social Dispersed Computer introduced as a Social Network? By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. October 12, 2018.
What might a Tau Operating System via a Tau Social Dispersed Computer function like?
We know from tauchain.org that the first iteration of Tau is to be a discussion platform not too dissimilar from Facebook. Of course this would simply be the front end or the "face" of what could behind the scenes evolve toward a social dispersed computer complete with a dispersed operating system. The resources have to be managed and a kernel could provide for this in a manner not dissimilar to what we see with EOS. The Agoras or AGRS token specifically represents "resources" as it is the tokenization of resources for whichever application Tauchain will use.
TML provides the basis from which to create the necessary languages to produce a dispersed operating system computer. Zennet even has an algorithm which Ohad himself worked on for the purpose of calculating the resource requirements. All minds will be able to contribute towards the computational resources (at least in theory) of Tauchain.
Because of Zennet there may in fact not be a limit to the amount of computation resources which we could throw at the super computer. It will of course depend on resource management which is where a kernel likely comes into play because any smart apps built to run on Tau will have to ask for resources. Resource management is one of the core functions of a kernel and of an operating system which is why I think it is likely that Tauchain will have one. I think the Ethereum route shows problems with scaling as applications also have to compete for resources in a way where the network cannot self manage it. Cryptokitties for example can render the whole Ethereum network lagged and if this is a computer then it could mean a nonsense app could disrupt more critical apps.
A prime example of a potential smart app for Tauchain
An example (which may or may not be feasible) is a health and fitness app. The app in theory could allow any user to provide data such as genetic information, blood test results, exercise tracking, blood pressure, blood sugar and anything else. All of this could provide a feedback loop back to the patient on how to improve their health over time based on the knowledge of Tau. As technology gets better the users could add more devices to provide more data for a better feedback loop. As technology evolves FGPAs could be added to meet the demand for calculations and storage can be rented as well.
An operating system could give priority to this kind of app by load balancing the resources. How would it know to do this? Tau could learn the morals, legal ramifications, and a consensus can emerge that health related apps deserve a premium access to resources because it can save lives.
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.
Tau Chain vs. Tezos - which platform will provide a better solution? By Isar Flis. Posted on Steemit. February 10, 2018.
In this article I would like to discuss the self-amending feature of Tau Chain (Tau), which I believe provides a better solution than the one proposed by Tezos.
A short summary about Tau
Tau will be a blockchain based computer network, aimed at supporting collaboration between people. It will be designed like any other social network you know (Facebook, Twitter, etc.); but on Tau, users can interact with each other using machine-comprehensible languages. Specifically, advanced users will be able to define new knowledge-representation languages simply by translating it to Tau’s metalanguage (TML). As the languages use logic, they will be understandable by both machines and humans.
Since Tau can “understand” the entire conversation, it can also translate the discussions into various languages and discover where people agree or disagree; then, it may present the content of the conversation in different forms (languages or formats) for each user, based on specific requests.
The ability of Tau to logically understand discussions (as it will be translated into its TML) will assist users in four important ways:
*For further information about Tau, please refer to my previous article, explaining Tau and its four-step roadmap.
“Tau, is a discussion about Tau”
Tau is a social platform that will assist users with writing and amending code based on users' discussions about a computer program. But Tau is a computer program by itself. Therefore, by discussing Tau, users will be able to amend Tau, whenever they (the community) reach an agreement about changing Tau’s protocol.
When Ohad Asor, the founder and developer of Tau Chain, mentioned that “Tau, is a discussion about Tau”, he meant that Tau is what the community decides when they discuss Tau. Meaning, when the community will face a decision, such as what Tau’s block size should be, they will just need to express their opinions and perspectives, like we do today in the social networks. Tau will organize the conversation in an efficient way to promote a solution that will represent what the community desires. As such, Tau will be the only dynamic decentralized social network.
Why is Tezos developing only a short-term solution?
You probably remember Tezos as one of the biggest ICOs in history, when they raised $232 million (when BTC price was ~$2,500). Like Tau, Tezos is also a dynamic protocol that can change itself based on users' agreements. Tezos considers voting to be the optimal solution to reach a decision between users.
Voting is a good method to include a large number of people in the decision-making process; however, voters have limited influence, as they can only choose between a few solutions/options presented to them. Who will decide when and why the community will vote? Who will decide what solutions the community can vote for? Tezos’ solution is still centralized and is only viable in the short-run. What will happen if some users do not agree with a specific vote? Does that mean that a Tezos fork is inevitable?
Without considering the perspectives of the entire community, we will not be able to reach a decentralized decision that benefits all users. Tau’s ability to scale discussions is the only decentralized solution to create a true dynamic protocol. Tau will enable all users to express their opinions by just discussing or communicating their views. Users will decide when and what to discuss, and Tau will change its protocol based on users' agreements. Thus, Tau will be able utilize all data in the decision-making process; data that is usually wasted when holding a vote.
To make it more tangible, think about the difference between discussing with your family which movie you’re going to watch and receiving a list of two movies to choose from. The latter might not reflect your taste in movies or how you want to spend your time. This is a low-scale analogy for Tezos’ voting solution. Tezos might provide a solution, but the solution is not optimal. When encountering a large-scale decision, the protocol will be changed based on the vote, but the minority might reject the vote and fork the coin.
Under Tau, the protocol will detect the core consensus among the different perspectives and change accordingly. With the assistance of Tau and its knowledge, users will effectively discuss among themselves how to reach further consensus points. With every consensus point, Tau will change itself accordingly.
*As the community members decide how Tau will be developed, they can suggest the majority rule (or a higher bar) as a decision rule. Tau will automatically detect the different perspectives of the community members and will execute their decision to change Tau’s protocol.
Another important aspect of Tau (compared to Tezos) is the fact that Tau will present its users with output about all the network input. All the data/opinions/information that users provide during their discussions will be accumulated to the knowledge archive. Tau will utilize its knowledge to provide its users with a better access for qualitative and quantitative information. Over Tau, the proposals (such as suggestions to change the protocol) that users will raise can be as wise as the information contained in the entire network.
I will end this article by quoting the last paragraph in my first article:
"I foresee huge potential for this project and urge you to read and learn about this project and its relevant applications. If you find this vision interesting, I recommend that you follow the project on Telegram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Reddit, or read Ohad’s blog for further information."
Disclaimer: I have invested in Agoras. Please do your own research before investing in Agoras and/or any other coin or project. Please do not consider this article to constitute financial advice.
The vision of Tau-Chain, a blockchain based self-amending platform designed to scale human collaboration and knowledge building. By Isar Flis. Posted on Steemit. January 8, 2018.
The Crypto-Currency Market
With the fluctuation in the price of Bitcoin, there are more voices claiming that the crypto-currency market is a bubble, warning investors about the risks of investing and possibly losing their funds. One of the claims is that virtual coins have no real value. However, by carefully studying this market, the potential investor will discover that some projects include technology, innovation, true vision and strong community, thus creating a fiscal value like that of other successful startup companies.
Today, it is difficult to predict which coin will secure a place among the top currencies on Coinmarketcap. There are large number of projects and buzz-words, used in fancy websites and white-papers, which make it challenging to extract the relevant information and make educated investments. In addition, there are projects that work “under-the-radar” and are very technical to comprehend, discouraging potential investors.
I would like to discuss one of these technical projects that works under-the-radar, without a fancy website or extensive marketing campaign but with brilliant innovation and fast-growing community. The name of the project is Tau-Chain (Agoras tokens on Coinmarketcap), developed by Ohad Asor.
Tau is a collaboratively self-amending program designed to scale human collaboration and knowledge building. To further clarify the explanation, think about a platform that can develop any computer program the user desires, based solely on discussions with his or her team about the program’s specification and development. The use of such a platform can change not only the crypto-ecosystem, but all branches of science.
Tau’s vision has a long way to go. However, Ohad has developed a detailed roadmap to achieve his vision. Tau will be developed in four stages, as follows:
Tau Meta Language (TML): TML is the base language that will enable all users to interact with each other, no matter what computer language they speak. Think about it as the technology behind Google Translate, but for computer languages, or as Ohad calls it: “the Internet of Languages”.
Alpha: Alpha is a social platform that promotes discussions between infinite numbers of users. Today, an effective conversation cannot be held when too many people take part in the decision-making process (that is why democracy was created). However, Alpha will be able to scale these discussions and detect logical points of consensus between users, thus enabling better knowledge sharing and construction.
Beta: Beta will advance Alpha to enable the development of computer programs, based on user discussions in the platform. To make this more tangible, think of Wix.com where anyone can easily develop a website, even without the technical expertise. With Beta, the code for any computer program will be developed based on specific instructions that the user provides.
Tau: Tau is where blockchain is introduced, thereby creating a decentralized platform (the Tau-Chain), compared to the centralized Beta. Tau will be self-amending and will be able to deduce knowledge based on the information submitted by its users. In its final stage, Tau will amplify the creation of knowledge for its users, advancing current human-knowledge, research and development in different disciplines, such as physics, mathematics and computer science.
The reasoning behind designing the roadmap in four stages is that each stage can support the advancement of the next one. This year we expect the development of the first two stages, TML and Alpha, to be completed. Using Alpha’s discussion platform, an infinite number of developers can join the project to build Beta, expediting its go-to-market date. After Beta is developed, it will only be a matter of time until Tau is completed as all technical challenges will be resolved using Beta.
The legal entity behind this operation is called “IDNI” (Intelligent Decentralized Networks Initiatives), which is composed by Tau’s development team and support units.
So, what is Agoras?
While Tau creates a true knowledge society, Agoras is about creating true monetary knowledge, by powering the ecosystem built via Tau. Agoras will be used to execute the applications of Tau, Zennet (Computational Resource Market), derivatives trading platform and further developments to be built as part of Tau’s ecosystem.
There are 42 million agoras in total. Most of the tokens were sold by Ohad during 2017. The sold tokens, named IDNI Agoras, represent the future Agoras coins holders will receive upon the completion of Tau (fourth stage), where the blockchain is introduced.
The current price of one IDNI Agoras is around ~$2 (traded on Bittrex), which has shown a steady growth throughout the development of the project. The initial code that was released as a proof of concept strengthened the confidence of investors in Tau, compared to competing projects.
I foresee huge potential for this project, and urge you to read and learn about this project and its relevant applications. If you find this vision interesting, I recommend that you follow the project on Telegram, Facebook and Reddit, or read Ohad’s blog for further information.
Disclaimer: I have invested in Agoras. Please do your own research before investing in Agoras and/or any other coin or project. Please do not consider this article to constitute financial advice.
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.