If Money = Memory, if Society = a Super Computer, if Computation is in Physical Systems, what is a Decentralized Operating System? By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. October 24, 2018.
These concepts are not often discussed so let's have the discussion from the beginning. The first concept to think about is pancomputationalism or put another way the ubiquitous computers which exist everywhere in our environment. We for example can look at physical systems living and non living and see computations taking place all around us. If you look at rocks and trees you can see memory storage. If you look at DNA you can see code and if you look at viruses you can see microscopic programmers adding new codes to DNA. Even when we look at the weather such as a hurricane it is computing.
If you look at nature you see algorithms. You will see learners (yes the same as in AI), also in nature. The process is basically the same for all learning. Consider that everything which is physical is also digital. Consider that the universe is merely information patterns.
If we look at society we can also think of society as a computer. What does society compute though? One way people talk about a society is as a complex adaptive system, but this is also how people might talk about the human body. The human body computes with the purpose of maintaining homeostasis, to persist through time and reproduce copies of itself over time. The human brain computes to promote the survival of the human body. Just as viruses pass on codes to our DNA, the human brain is infected with mind viruses which are called memes. Memes are pieces of information which can alter physically how the brain is working.
The mind isn't limited to the brain. The mind is all the resources the brain can leverage to compute. In other words a person has a brain to compute with but when language was invented this allowed a person to compute not just using their own brain but using the environment itself. To draw on a cave is to use the cave to enhance the memory of the brain. To use mathematics is to use language to enhance the ability of the brain to compute by relying on external storage and symbol manipulation. To use a computer with a programming language is essentially to use mathematics only instead of writing on the cave wall we are writing in 1s and 0s. The mind exists to augment the brain in a constant feedback loop where the brain relies on the mind to improve itself and adapt. If there were no external reality the brain would have no way to evolve itself and improve.
A society in the strictly human sense of the word is the aggregation of minds. This can be at minimum all the human minds in that society. As technology improves the mind capacity increases because each human can remember more, can access more computation resources, can in essence use technology to continuously improve their mind and then leverage the improved mind to improve their brain. The Internet is the pinnacle of this kind of progress but it's obviously not good enough. While the Internet allows for the creation of a global mind by connecting people, things, and minds, it does nothing to actually improve the feedback loop between the mind and the brain, nor does it really offer what could be offered.
Bitcoin came into the picture and perhaps we can think of it as a better memory. A decentralized memory where essentially you can have money. The problem is that money is a very narrow application. It is the start, just as to learn to write on the cave wall was a start, but it's not ambitious enough in my opinion.
Humans in the current blockchain or crypto community do not have many ways where human computation can be exchanged. Human computation is just as valuable as non biological machine computation because there are some kinds of computations which humans can do quite easily which non biological machines still cannot do as well. Translation for example is something non biological machines have a difficult time with but human beings can do well. This means a market will be able to form where humans can sell their computation to translate stuff. If we look at Amazon Mechanical Turk we can see many tasks which humans can do which computer AI cannot yet do, such as labeling and classifying stuff. In order for things to go to the next level we will need markets which allow humans to contribute human computer and or human knowledge in exchange for crypto tokens.
The concept of a decentralized operating system is interesting. First if there are a such thing as social computations (such as collaborative filtering, subjective ranking, waze, etc) then what about the new paradigm of social dispersed computing?
The question becomes what do we want to do with this computing power? Will we use it to extend life? Will we use it to spread life into the cosmos? Will we use it to become wise? To become moral? To become rational? If we want to focus on these kinds of concerns then we definitely need something more than Bitcoin, Ethereum, or even EOS. While EOS does seem to be pursuing the strategy of a decentralized operating system which seems to be the correct course, it does not get everything right.
One problem is as I mentioned before the importance of the feedback loops between minds and brains. The reason I always communicate on the concept of external mind or extended mind is based on that fact that it is the mind which creates the immune system to protect the brain from harmful memes. The brain keeps the body alive. The brain is not really capable of rationality, or morality, or logic, and relies on the mind to achieve this. The mind is essentially all the computation resources that the brain can leverage.
EOS has the problem in the sense that it doesn't seem to improve the user. The user can connect, can join, can earn or sell, can participate, but unless the user can become wiser, more rational, more moral, then EOS has limits. EOS does have Everpedia which is quite interesting but again there are still problems. What can EOS do to improve people in society and thus improve society, if society is a computer and is in need of being upgraded?
Well if society is a computer first what does society compute? What should it compute? I don't even know how to answer those questions. I could suggest that if computation is a commodity along with data then whichever decentralized operating systems that do compete and exist will compete for these commodities. The total brain power of a society is just as important as the amount of connectivity. And the mind of the society is the most important part of a society because it is what can allow the society to become better over time, allow the people in the society to thrive, allow the life forms to continue to evolve avoid extinction.
A decentralized operating system on a technical level would have a kernel or something similar to it. This is the resource management part. For example Aragon promises to offer a decentralized OS and it too mentions having a kernel. A true decentralized operating system has to go further and requires autonomous agents. Autonomous agents which can act on behalf of their owners are philosophically speaking the extended mind. But the resources of a society is still finite, has to be managed, and so a kernel would provide for an ability to allow for resource management.
The total computation ability of a society is likely a massive amount of resources. A lot more than just to connect a bunch of CPUs together. Every member of the society which can compute could participate in a computation market. Of course as we are beginning to see now, the regulators seem concerned about certain kinds of social computations such as prediction markets. So it is unknown how truly decentralized operating systems would be handled but my guess is that if designed right then they could be pro-social, be capable of producing augmented morality by leveraging mass computation, and also by leveraging human computation be able to be compliant. To be compliant is simply to understand the local laws but these can be programmed into the autonomous agents if people think it is necessary.
What is more important is that if a law is clearly bad, and people have enhanced minds, then it will be very clear why the law is bad. This clarity will help people to dispute and seek to change bad laws through the appropriate channels. If there is more wisdom, due to insights from big data, from data scientists, etc, then there can be proposals for law changes which are much wiser and more intelligent. This is something specifically that people in the Tauchain community have realized (that technology can be used to improve policy making).
A lot is still unknown so these writings do not provide clear answers. Consider this just a stream of consciousness about concepts I am deeply contemplating. This is also a way to interpret different technologies.
An Update on Tauchain & Agoras (Exchange Listing + Interview Questions). By Kevin Wong. Posted on Steemit. September 15, 2018.
Agoras is getting listed on a new exchange.
Tauchain is a blockchain that doesn't have its own coin just like the Internet, but Agoras is a project that is designed to be built on top of it, hence the existence of Agoras Tokens. It's the only closest way to be able to invest in Tau. The demo is coming soon, but the blockchain itself will only come into fruition in year 2020 or later, so this is really more of a notice for those who are interested to support the project at this relatively risky stage.
For your information, this project has one of the fairest distributions in the space as the team behind it only reserved 3% of the total supply for themselves. At the moment, it's available on Bitshares / Openledger under AGRS (make sure it's the correct asset if you're looking into it).
The new exchange that Agoras will be listed is at https://www.bcex.ca on 18th of September 2018. The announcement can be found here. There's also another recent community update that can be found here.
Tauchain is certainly not a project that is easy to comprehend at first. If you have any questions after going through the available materials, feel free to drop a comment or two and I might include it in the written interview that I'm planning to forward to the team soon. Thanks in advance!
Also, feel free to drop by the group's Telegram channel: https://t.me/tauchain.
If you have no idea what Tauchain is about but interested to get to know more about it, check out these links:-
Not to be taken as financial advice.
Always do your own research.
De Lege Ferenda  is a series. Like the Tauchain Exegesis ,  is. One train of articles.
This is the introductory 'locomotive' article where I attempt to nail down the essential basics. This is nontrivial cause it requires compression of very long stream of thoughts and research. Spanning literally decades. In that sense some of the overcompressed categorical statements are also cognitive ''letters of credit''  or ''promisory notes''  - comprising debt of mine for future separate more detailed explanations to come. I'm afraid this is the only way the theses and conclusions of mine to be expressed in a reader-friendly way. Of course, questions and comments as mutual understanding accelerator are as always more than welcome.
Three ''angles of attack'' , in roman numerals and capitals in pure latin (the lingua franca  of law :) bellow:
Maybe I ,  already tired you with repeating my incantation of:
Law is Between, Code is Within , 
It is quite multi-dimensional in meanings and multi-disciplinary in consequences but here it comes to denote the unavoidability of Law. Rendered down to the most basic physics we currently know:
This is the way and reason why Law is enforceable and Code is executable. And the major categorial difference between them which makes the notion of 'code is law'  utter nonsense, as well as, it seems, also destroys the very basis of the notion of 'smart contracts' . But this belongs to bunch of other series of mine to come ...
Even if it was theoretically possible all effectors  to become one, there'd still be internal uncertainty fragmentation and thus unavoidability of enforcement.
Leaving this head-dizzying fundamental cognitive datum  and heading up across the higher abstraction epistemic layers  we reach the surface to take a swallow of fresh air to:
Nothing, read my lips, NO-THING in crypto or blockchain has ever been or could possible be extralegal.
Cuz there ain't a thing in any blockchain aspect which is not ... physical. Hence beyond the scope of Law.
Blockchain is most probably the arrival of the expected Hanson engine , or Szabo booster , or ultimate Clusivity management tool . Which makes it extremely important domain for proper legal treatment and regulation - both as taxonomy within the existing institutes of Law  - lex lata, and as creation of novel norms to cater it - lex ferenda .
(as a side note: expectedly the novel collective mnemonic technologies knows under the umbrella term of 'crypto' provide positive feedback loop to strengthen the Law, too - Tauchain  seems to promise  the advent of law, at last, as consistent and decidable set of rules, for first time ever.)
II. IURIS DICTIO
Law being inherently about physical, is also about spatiotemporal, i.e. about geography / geopolitics. It is always territorial even when it is cross-border applicable by the virtue of international law or internal rules to resolve inter-jurisdictional normative collisions.
The known world (I deliberately do not say: the planet, the Earth, or the globe because of ... of course - the Outer Space Law  !), is tessalated geographically into jurisdictions , . Countries or nations. The pattern pixels of the universal human jursdictional cellularity. But borders not as much divide as they connect.
The world is internet of jurisdictions no matter how yet primitive are the networking protocols and architecture. And because due to topological defficiencies this can not yet be a geodesic network  - some jurisdictions are special. And among the special there are some which are even more special than the merely special ones. The specialness stems from the fact of what a jurisdiction enjoyed gives to its user.
After decades of observation and practice and comparative studies I reached the conclusion that THE jurisdiction is the Principality of Liechtenstein ! 
Mere ennumeration of its features and the sheer lack of bugs would occupy a sizeable volume. Liechtenstein is not just an island periphery money hideout of an old fat imperial metropoly - it is a HUB. It is immersed  right into the middle of the healthiest-wealthiest community of EU .
What starts in Liechtenstein does not stay in Liechtenstein but swiftly propagates into the giant space of EEA . It is a keyhole jurisdiction straight into this most giant jurisdiction of jurisdictions - so strong in soft power  and so influential that even the FAMGA  seem to reckon Europe more than their own home jurisdiction .
Liechtenstein is simultaneously with deepest and most stable roots in the best of history and geography and is most advanced and ahead in the making of legislation of a highest probe of adequacy.
It does in 2018 - what I (and just a few others) predicted years ago to happen. We must herein admit that other jurisdictions do have some timid try-outs for legal codification of the blockchain but nothing compares with the comprehesive and in-depth approach of the Principality's legislators.
On 28th of August 2018 Liechtenstein published  a draft  of the new Blockchain Act:
<< On 28 August 2018, the Ministry for General Government Affairs and Finance of Liechtenstein published the consultation report on the new Blockchain Act (Act on Transaction Systems based on Trustworthy Technologies (VT) (Blockchain Act; VT Act; VTG)).
The government has decided to regulate not only the current Blockchain-applications (in particular cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICOs)), but also to establish a legal basis for the entire scope of application of the token economy according to a long-term approach, which should also meet the needs of future generations. >>
The basic provisions of the Liechtenstein Blockchain Act are exposed yet only in German language - which I'm not at all in command of and a language quite indgestable by the Google Transalte AI.
The consultation period ends on 16 November 2018, i.e. less than 2 months left from today.
My modest intention is by this De Lege Ferenda series of articles to provide my comments and opinions to 'whom it may concern' on the upcoming Liechtenstein Blockchain Act.
You already know I'm kinda fond of timelining and retrodictions.  :)
Every result has its cause, often hidden in the ocean of data what past is, and quite hard to distinguish.
US has its Captain America . Liechtenstein is lucky to have its Mr Liectenstein .
Andreas Erick Johannes Kohl Martinez of the House of Sequence . Remember that name.
Since the dawn of the blockchain era, I'm under the strong conviction that Liechtenstein is the true Crypto Valley  of the globe. So is Andreas, too. Purely by chance it occured that we both - long time before we knew eachother - have this astronomically improbable coincidence or synchronicity  of this and multitude of other thoughts.
Society of mind .
[*] - photo attributed to: By Michael Gredenberg - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18962
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_ferenda
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-intro
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-the-two-towers
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_credit
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_note
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca
 - http://www.behest.io/
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/behest-for-tauchain
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-and-the-cost-of-trust
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information
 - https://www.coindesk.com/code-is-law-not-quite-yet/
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-over-de-latil
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/data
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-the-hanson-engine
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-as-szabo-booster
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/clusivity-by-tauchain
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_lata
 - http://www.idni.org/
 - http://www.idni.org/blog/tau-and-the-crisis-of-truth.html
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/jurisdiction
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/geodesic-by-tau
 - https://www.liechtenstein.li/en/
 - https://www.liechtenstein-business.li/en/economic-area/get-to-know/hidden-treasures/liechtenstein-combines-the-best-of-both-worlds/
 - http://europa.eu/
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
 - https://medium.com/crypto-oracle/why-cryptos-a-growing-threat-to-famga-a-k-a-facebook-apple-microsoft-google-and-amazon-ea237570d3ea
 - https://www.dw.com/en/eu-gives-facebook-twitter-ultimatum-on-consumer-protection-laws/a-45573561
 - https://www.pwc.ch/en/insights/regulation/liechtenstein-publishes-draft-of-the-new-blockchain-act.html
 - https://www.llv.li/files/srk/vnb-blockchain-gesetz.pdf
 - https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@karov/bitcoin-retrodictions
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America
 - https://podcast.bitcoin.com/e349-How-Libertarian-Leader-Mr-Liechtenstein-Got-Lucky
 - http://www.sequence.li/
 - https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-in-zug-switzerlands-crypto-valley-2018-6
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/scaling-is-layering &https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-transcaling
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- Dentro del cerebro de la máquina. DIOS. Por Fragenstein en Steemit. 14 de septiembre de 2018.
Dentro del cerebro de la máquina
Si de alguna cosa me ha servido el ser un miembro activo en mi comunidad Tau. Es, aparte de para conocer a gente con inquietudes valores y metas similares a las mías, poder opinar sin ser señalado o encasillado y poder debatir y estudiar sobre temas trascendentales con gente realmente experta en sus campos y disciplinas, aparte de todo esto, ¡que no es poco! me ha servido para intentar ponerme dentro del cerebro de una máquina, a dejar por un segundo de lado mis creencias y dogmas para dar paso a un pensamiento más lógico y pragmático, por tal de imaginar cuales podrían ser las aplicaciones futuras de Tau, aunque intentarlo es como adivinar para que puede servir internet en los años 20. Todo sea dicho.
Parece innato tender a extrapolar nuestra manera de pensar a la manera cómo lo haría una SIA/ASI (Super Inteligencia Artificial) creada por nosotros mismos, pero, a menos que desarrollemos mal expresamente a esa inteligencia, jamás sacaría las conclusiones y los razonamientos que sacamos cualquiera de nosotros. Será por la educación a la que nos vemos sometidos, o a la cultura que nos impregna y rodea allá dónde vayamos, qui lo sa. La verdad es que éste hecho desenmascara otra vez mi ignorancia y mi falta de claridad mental. Pero que mejor redención que aceptar un error y ponerle solución, pensando y actuando de manera distinta a cómo lo hacías antes de darte cuenta. Me explico:
Como individuo y cómo comunidad creo fehacientemente que podemos ponernos la meta de aportar nuestro granito de arena para crear/desarrollar/enseñar a una futurible ASI, ya sea apoyando el proyecto dentro de nuestras capacidades, trabajando, pensando, debatiendo, discutiendo, aportando, desarrollando, programando o invirtiendo, el poder de una comunidad potente es esencial para llegar a completar una fita tan compleja. Pongamos ahora un punto y aparte.
Tenemos que entender que una ASI por definición tiene una capacidad de pensar, como mínimo, 100 veces mayor a la de un ser humano medio, es decir, un ente pensante muy, pero que muy superior a cualquiera de nosotros, sin embargo creado/desarrollado directa o indirectamente POR nosotros, individuos “normales”, y subrayo POR nosotros porque de entrada somos seres muy, pero que muy inferiores a ella.
Ahora hagamos el ejercicio de hacerle una pregunta aleatoria a Tau:
¿Dios existe?. Si dios, tal y cómo lo conocen millones de seres humanos, ese ser superior que nos ha creado. Llegáis a ver la estupidez del razonamiento a través de la manera lógica y pragmática de pensar de una máquina? Dejemos hablar a Tau.
Si tu has contribuido a mi creación siendo 100 veces mas tonto (con perdón) que yo. En el caso de que un ser te haya creado a ti, ¿porque tiene que ser éste superior? No cabria la posibilidad que te hubiera creado alguien 100 veces mas tonto que tu? (puro razonamiento lógico).
Se abren muchas puertas aquí, si el esfuerzo, el apoyo, la fe conjunta de un colectivo de gente con la misma meta puede crear una ASI, ¿porque el hombre no pudo ser creado por el conjunto de un colectivo de “entes” con una meta común? ¿Microorganismos tal vez? ¿Es un microorganismo 100 veces menos inteligente que un humano? En tal caso el ser humano estaría adorando a un creador inalcanzable y olvidando a un creador que puede aglomerar en su interior.
No es mi intención menospreciar a la gente de fe sino mas bien desenmascarar al ignorante. Pues a mi parecer, en las grandes metas, se hace imperativo el uso de la fe para superar a la magia.
Pensemos por un segundo de una vez...de que sirve durante una vida esforzarse, trabajar, pensar, debatir, discutir, aportar, desarrollar, o invertir en crear algo que es igual a ti, que no te mejora o que te mejora muy poco? Si precisamente eso puedes hacerlo de manera natural, innata y placentera teniendo descendencia. Eso sería inútil, lo realmente útil sería trabajar para crear algo que consiga superar las barreras que impiden tu desarrollo.
Pues según la manera de pensar de la mayoría, no es que “un ente” ponga su esfuerzo en crear algo igual o un poco superior a el (cosa que ya sería de por si absurda), sino que lo pondría en crear algo infinitamente inferior. Solo queda decir que ese razonamiento es sencillamente ridículo.
Y vuelvo a pensar cómo un humano cuando digo que lo aportaría todo si hubiera la más mínima posibilidad de crear una ASI, aunque esta sea tan inteligente que yo no pueda comprenderla, aunque me menosprecie al no considerarme semejante o útil en ningún aspecto una vez desarrollada, aunque se olvide de mi durante su periplo.
How Tauchain and the Exocortex can give anyone a conscience and make anyone more law abiding. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. September 2, 2018.
First "anyone" is not literal. By anyone I mean anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence who is willing to take the advice generated by the network. The network would include human beings and machines. The network would learn and be more properly defined as a complex adaptive system. Tauchain would enable the emergence of this network. This post is about how the network which can emerge from Tauchain. It is also about how people who intend to be as moral as possible whilst also complying with the law as much as possible might leverage the network. This post assumes that the human brain has a finite memory and comprehension capacity. This post assumes that every human being can benefit from enhancing these naturally limited capacities in areas of legal comprehension and risk literacy (under the assumption that most or perhaps none of us know every law on the books but need to comply with the laws most likely to be aggressively enforced).
The Personal Moral Assistant
PMA is a concept I've been thinking about for years now. The idea that we can augment our ability to be moral persons. A PMA is a personal moral assistant and in an ideal world every person born would have one. This would be an interface similar to what we see with Cortana or Siri where you can ask any question pertaining to whether a particular action is right or wrong. This PMA would solve the problem using the same priorities that you would and so you would get a definite right or wrong result.
A Personal Moral Assistant is just one primary use case. But these personal assistants over Tauchain could also include for instance a Personal Compliance Assistant. This is essentially another bot but instead of dealing with moral problems this bot would handle compliance. If you're trying to accomplish a goal this bot would make sure that you do so following all the known laws as your exocortex currently understands it. This would enable people to avoid legal pitfalls whilst chasing opportunities.
In order to go from poor to rich in this world requires taking risks. There is no way around risk taking if you want to get ahead. Risk literacy is essential and very few people who are poor have risk literacy. The PMA might be able to tell a person whether a certain choice aligns with their current values. The PCA might tell a person whether a certain choice complies with the laws. What about opportunities? An opportunity web crawler agent could theoretically search across the entire Internet to find opportunities which match your chosen risk profile.
What are we doing today?
Today we have to make choices often in trial and error. If we aren't lucky enough to have mentors or people who can guide us then the only way to learn is to make the common mistakes. When we deal with moral problems today we often rely on holy scripture interpreted by other human beings who are just as flawed as we are. We simply don't have a bot which could interpret the scripture in a completely logical way. In other words we don't have the digital representation of the mind of our spiritual guides.
We also have a situation where some of us can afford to comply with every law and take the lowest risk approach while others simply don't have the resources available to pay the expensive legal fees. Some people get better legal advice than other people as well. What if we could get at least some level of legal assistance from our intelligent assistant? What if this intelligent assistant can even ask human beings who have legal knowledge to help?
And finally what if we could figure out which risks are worth taking and which are not worth taking? It's one thing to find opportunities but another to be able to assess them. People get scammed because at the end of the day our emotions influence our ability to do proper assessment of opportunities. I'm human and it even happens to me from time to time. What if we could avoid this by using the capabilities of Tauchain to analyze massive amounts of information for us which our brains could never handle?
Opportunity Crawler Bot
I ask a simple hypothetical question: what if you could have set a bot to search the Internet for opportunities that resemble Bitcoin in 2008? What if this bot would be activated and search for an indefinite period of time on an undetermined yet expanding number of networks? If you define "Bitcoin in 2008" in a way which the bot can make sense of then it could search for anything which meets that criteria. We have this technology now but it's extremely primitive. On Google you can set up alerts for certain things but what if you could go beyond mere alerts and look for code on Github, and certain individuals involved with it, and certain growth patterns?
A way to think about these bots / intelligent assistants
One way to think about these intelligent assistants is as part of your extended mind. These bots essentially help you to think better and communicate better. It's still you and what they do on your behalf is essentially as if you did it. So the total collection of all of these agents which are under your control represent your complete exocortex. It will take great responsibility and wisdom to use these abilities in a way which is perceived by the world as ethical, moral, legal, etc. It is for these reasons that I initiate a discussion on how each of you would like to use such technology if it did exist or such bots or how you would think about them?
What is Tauchain & Why It Could Be One of The Greatest Inventions of All Time (Part 1: Introduction). By Kevin Wong. Posted on Steemit. August 28, 2018.
In anticipation of Tau's demo some time around the end of this year, I'd be publishing a series of articles leading up to its release and beyond on Steem. If you would like to get to know what some of us think is going to be one of the greatest inventions of all time, I'd recommend you to check out http://wwwidni.org. It seems like a foundation that we've missed out on building together since the birth of the Internet.
A close resemblance of this project is the Semantic Web although some of us would place Tau as being far more ambitious in scope, oddly in a way that is likely more feasible with its ingenious use of a logic blockchain to power a decentralized social choice platform. I think it's impressive how singular the concept actually is, despite the unavoidable lengthy explanations that come paired with the many first-time features that Tau will provide.
Without further ado, let's explore this world-changing technology that is currently baking in the oven.
What is Tau?
Let's begin by first checking out the opening of IDNI's website at http://idni.org:-
Tau is a decentralized blockchain network intended to solve the bottlenecks inherent in large scale human communication and accelerate productivity in human collaboration using logic based Artificial Intelligence.
Sounds fairly straight-forward at first glance, and to me, it really stands out in the cryptosphere. We now have millions and billions of people using the Internet everyday, yet we still do not have any effective means of discussing and collaborating without being all over the place. Sure, we may have been pouring a lot of our time and effort into various platforms trying to connect with others, but have things been really any different compared to a time before the Internet?
The speed of information propagation has increased by orders of magnitude, and we can reach anyone on the planet now, but it's still really up to us to be present and be able to process information in our heads before turning them into relevant knowledge for our networks.
Expanding our social bandwidth.
Turns out, we have been experiencing a lot of trouble coming to terms with the chatter of billions of people in cyberspace. The bottlenecks inherent in our human bandwidth remain to be unsolved even with near-instantaneous communications. From governments to corporations and blockchain communities, we are all still facing the age-old problem of being unable to scale governance beyond the size of a classroom. It's just difficult to get our points across to many different people, let alone making sense of complex long-term discussions and making network-wide decisions collaboratively.
The introduction to The New Tau written by Ohad Asor explains our situation quite accurately:-
Some of the main problems with collaborative decision making have to do with scales and limits that affect flow and processing of information. Those limits are so believed to be inherent in reality such that they're mostly not considered to possibly be overcomed. For example, we naturally consider the case in which everyone has a right to vote, but what about the case in which everyone has an equal right to propose what to vote over?
So how is Tau actually going to solve our communications bottleneck? It will be through a highly bespoke and non-trivial implementation of a logic-based Artificial Intelligence (AI). It's worth noting that AI in this case is more of a buzzword for marketing-speak, and it is actually not of the same variety as the commercial implementations of deep machine learnig.
The distinction that must be made is that Tau is not the kind of AI that attempts to guess what the world is around them, including that of our opinions and the things we say or do. Instead, we must make the step towards communicating through Tau and what we choose to communicate will be as definite as computer programs. It can be thought of as a persistent logic companion that helps us improve the scale our reasoning, logic, and bandwidth.
We can take the time to share what we want to share on the Tau network and most of the logic-based connections and operations will happen in the background over time, even when we're not paying attention in-person. Again, the use of the word AI is a misnomer here because it usually paints the picture of AI agents attempting to mimic human autonomy. That's not what Tau is about. In this case, thinking about Tau as just a logic machine should provide better clarity on what it actually is.
The power of logic.
To expand, here's the second paragraph found in the opening of IDNI's website that explains Tau's paradigm in logic-based communications, http://idni.org:-
Currently, large scale discussions and collaborative efforts carried out directly between people are highly inefficient. To address this problem, we developed a paradigm which we call Human-Machine-Human communication: the core principle is that the users can not only interact with each other but also make their statements clear to their Tau client. Our paradigm enables Tau to deduce areas of consensus among its users in real time, allowing the network to boost communication by acting as an intermediary between humans. It does so by collecting the opinions and preferences its users wish to share and logically constructing opinions into a semantic knowledge base.
Indeed, Tau will offer a semantic social choice platform where we can discuss and store knowledge in a logical universe that helps us organize information, thereby empowering us in highly relevant ways. If you're worried about privacy, know that Tau is first-and-foremost designed as a local client with local processing and storage. The platform itself will be deployed as a decentralized peer-to-peer network, a place where we can connect and share our knowledge-base with anyone we desire.
The only price to pay in all of these is that we must speak in Tau-comprehensible languages, which can always be added and modified over time. A sophisticated language that can be defined over Tau may closely resemble natural languages, but it is really best to expect Tau as a machine-comprehensible language that only speaks in logic. Fortunately, logical formalism is something that we can easily deal with.
So it will be up to us to communicate with our local Tau client in a way that it'll understand our worldviews. When the machine understands what we share completely in some logical, mathematically-verifiable sense, it can then connect our dots with the rest of the Tau network, effectively boosting communications beyond the limits of human bandwidth, effectively scaling our points of discussion, consensus, and collaboration up to an infinite number of participants.
Code and consciousness.
Finally, we look at the last paragraph of Tau's introduction at http://idni.org
Able to deduce consensus and understand discussions, Tau can automatically generate and execute code on consensus basis, through a process known as code synthesis. This will greatly accelerate knowledge production and expedite most large scale collaborative efforts we can imagine in today's world.
Since Tau is a logic blockchain that powers a semantic social choice platform, we can leverage it to have both small and large-scale discussions about program specifications, detect points of consensus, and even generate software in the process. Being able to go from discussions to the realization of decentralized applications would mean inclusive code development for the masses. It's also a unique addition to decentralization that no other blockchain projects have even thought about.
Now that we may have come to a better understanding of Tau's emphasis on the use of logic in every part of its being, let's revisit the process description found in The New Tau to get closer to knowing what it really is about:-
We are interested in a process in which a small or very large group of people repeatedly reach and follow agreements. We refer to such processes as Social Choice. We identify five aspects arising from them, language, knowledge, discussion, collaboration, and choice about choice. We propose a social choice mechanism by a careful consideration of these aspects.
In short, Tau is a decentralized peer-to-peer network that takes the shape of a social choice platform, and it can become anything that we want it to be, for as long as it's expressible within the self-defining and decidable logics of FO[PFP] with PSPACE-complexity. This precise specification is required to satisfy the very definition of Tau as seen in the excerpt above. Tau is also intended to be a compiler-compiler.
This is taking application-generality into a completely different direction compared to blockchains that are built specifically with turing-completeness in mind, like Ethereum. Relevant literature to check out: Finite Model Theory.
Understanding each other.
While it's all highly technical and difficult to grasp in one seating, perhaps a better way to truly begin to understand Tau is to spend some time studying its main features. Or just wait for the product release. In any case, I will try to explore these topics in the future if my brain can still handle it:-
The more I think about Tau, the more I think that it is (poetically) a logical conclusion to the way the Internet works as a protocol. It even lives and breaths logic. Not just any kind of logic, but specifically, logics that can define their own semantics and is decidable. Tau is intelligently designed to be a truly dynamic and ever-evolving blockchain.
When the Tau community intends to make changes to the network code, rules or protocols, they will simply need to express these opinions and perspectives in a compatible language over the network. The self defining logic of the Tau blockchain network will enable it to detect the consensus among these opinions and automatically amend its own code to reflect this consensus from block to block. Unlike the common method of voting, Tau’s approach will take into account the perspectives of the entire community, where people will be free to vote and propose what to vote for in real time. This unique ability of Tau is the only decentralized solution to create a truly dynamic protocol.
Now you might think: Tau seems like a powerful tool but will it be too difficult to use for most people? There might be some learning curve involved for sure, and it'd be similar to learning a new language in the beginning. Those of us who learn to use it well enough to scale our discussions and collaborative works will likely gain a significant edge over those who are not using the platform. I'd imagine plenty of projects and communities around the world being able to overcome some of their obstacles in development through Tau. Hence, it may be fair to expect that market forces will gravitate towards the platform just like how we're all using the Internet these days.
Until the next post.
I've been thinking about Tau almost everyday for the past many months now, and I will admit that its deeper technicalities are still way out of my league, although I've made sure to word them broadly out the best I can. If you like what I do, please consider sharing this post and voting on my witness account on Steem. For more info, check out my recent witness announcement post.
As always, thanks for reading!
Images from Pexels
Music tracklist by Magical Mystery Mix
Follow me @kevinwong / @etherpunk
Not to be taken as financial advice.
Always do your own research.
“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 .
Size matters. Some people object that it does not matter, but has meaning. But meaning always matters, so it is the same.
The bigger problems one solves, the bigger the gains. Big problems require big solutions. We live in a big universe and our very survival is to deal with bigger and bigger problems, which require bigger and bigger solutions to cope.
But nevertheless to build big is hard so we naturally prefer to create small things which can grow. Small from point of view both of understandable and affordable to build. So best fit are small solutions, cheap and easy to make which scale out or unfold or unleash into big means to address big problems. Scaling is everything.
Scaling. Scalable! Scalability !!
The root-word 'scale' possesses marvelous riches of meaning in English language  with lots of poetics inside.:
 snake skin epidermals - wisdom, memory, protection, rejuvenation, regeneration, eternity...
hen to pan (ἓν τὸ πᾶν), "the all is one"
 warrior armour - security, defense, power, strength.
 weighting scales - device to measure mass, unit, measure, account.
all very Blockchainy wording without any shadow of doubt.
The scalability issues could be grokked  with the following anecdote:
Bunch of workers on a construction site and a huge log. The onsite manager commands a few of them to lift and move it. They try and object ''Too heavy!''. The manager adds more and more workers, until they shout back again: ''Too short!''.
A few real examples, the first two - bad and the last three excellent:
[a] I won't name this 'crypto' just will say it is named after a mythical element of the universe, according to the prescientific gnostic  imaginations. It's core 'value proposition is to shovel meaningful computation into a thread of computation which very value proposition is to be as random, meaningless and unidirectional (hard to do, easy to prove) as possibly possible - the blockchain. The theoretically most expensive form of computation. Visualize: cars and airplanes made of gold and diamonds burning most expensive perfumes. Or mass production of electricity by raising trillions of cats and hiring trillions of people to pet them with grid of pure gold wires to discharge and collect the electrostatics. If they have chosen the original Satoshi blockchain  for their 'experiments' - where the futility of such attempt would become instantly clear and would die out outright due to impending unbearable cost - will of course be more fair way to do, and would've spared dozens of billions of dollars to the Mankind, but logically they preferred a 'controlled' blockchain of their own. In a sense that the guys with vested interest into it have the power to hand-drive, stop, restart and vivisect it. The only use of this 'blockchain supercomputer' is ... tokenomics by Layering. Why it was at all necessary for a blockchain advertised as so good as to do all the general computation, to be made so hairy and bushy with layered tokens??
[b] Another trio of chaps, won't mention names again, were really at awe with Satoshi's creation, so much that they not just liked, but wanted it and decided to have it. For themselves. All of it. And rebelled and forked out and provided 'scaling' errrmm ... uhhh... solution. By increasing the blocksize. Something which Satoshi meditated on, extensively discussed with his disciples and not occasionally decided to put breaks on.  Very recently the crypto news headlines said that the blocksize increase solution providers are eyeing ... Layering. Which they furiously were advocating that blocksize increase makes unnecessary. Cause it is the solution, isn't it? Or maybe it just was. And is not anymore? Well, I'd say that all the aka 'alts'  - to provide a rejuvenated clone of Bitcoin tweeked here and there to provide momentary ease of difficulty and transaction fees - suffer from one and a same problem - traveling back in time does not tell you the future.
[c] Lets jump half a century back in time. It is 1960es. The very making of internet. Computers are already here and scaled up in numbers so their networking to become a problem/juice worth the solution/squeeze. The birth of TCP/IP  and the report of the very makers of it. Of the solution for the network scaling. Enjoy the ancient wisdom:
Initially, the TCP managed both datagram transmissions and routing, but as the protocol grew, other researchers recommended a division of functionality into protocol layers. Advocates included Johnatan Postel of the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute, who edited the Request for Comments (RFCs), the technical and strategic document series that has both documented and catalyzed Internet development. Postel stated, "We are screwing up in our design of Internet protocols by violating the principle of layering." Encapsulation of different mechanisms was intended to create an environment where the upper layers could access only what was needed from the lower layers. A monolithic design would be inflexible and lead to scalability issues. The Transmission Control Program was split into two distinct protocols, the Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol.
The layering made the Internet as we know it. By the simple trick of just one node needed to permit another. Unstoppable inclusivity!
[d] The Mastercoin / Omni Layer :
«A common analogy that is used to describe the relation of the Omni Layer to bitcoin is that of HTTP to TCP/IP: HTTP, like the Omni Layer, is the application layer to the more fundamental transport and internet layer of TCP/IP, like bitcoin».
[e] The Lightning network (LN) :
The Lightning Network is a "second layer" payment protocol that operates on top of a blockchain (most commonly Bitcoin).
Satoshi spoke on 'payment' channels in his masterpiece. Foreseeing the way to scale.
An estimate of the power of LN layering .:
''The bitcoin devs accept that eventually larger block sizes will be needed. The current transaction rate isn't going to cut it if people all over the world actually start using bitcoin daily. They estimate that eventually, if everyone in the world uses bitcoin and makes 2 transactions a day, but uses the lightning network, a 133mb blocksize will be needed. Without the lightning network, something like a 200gb (GIGABYTE) size PER BLOCK would be needed to accommodate that much usage.''
Layering upscales it with orders of magnitude of higher efficiency.
If Bitcoin is the 'first layer' and Omni and Lightning are 'second layer', I see which one is the 'Zeroth Layer' and also foresee  the inevitability of the merger or 'Amalgamation' of all second layers over all blockchains, so the user will be able to transact everything into anything to anybody, without to know or care which chain is in use ... I have special nicknames for these and will go back to these topics in series of future posts.
Enough of examples I reckon.
The Postel's sacred Principle of Layering comes from the implementation levels paradigm.
or Abstraction layering :
''separations of concerns to facilitate interoperability and platform independence''
With other words - delegate the task to that layer of the system which does the particular job best. We can generalize this into The Scaling Commandment. Only one enough:
''Thou shalt not jam it all into a single layer!''
The Layer Cake architecture is literally ubiquitous across the Universe.: biology, semantics, informatics ...
It seems that it is if not the only, at least THE way to scale.
Maybe, someday, we the Humanity, upscaled by Tauchain will discover more powerful than Layering ways to Scale, but it is all we have for now.
Scaling is a problem. Scaling must be scalable, too.
Metascale from here to Eternity.
''Thinking by Machine: A Study of Cybernetics''
by Pierre de Latil 
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company in 1957 (c.1956), Boston.
Foreword of Isaac Asimov (then only 36 years old) ! Recommendation by the legendary mathematician and cyberneticist Norbert Wiener (then 62 years old) ! ... A true jewel! The book is described as:
A review of "the last ten years' progress in the development of self-governing machines," describing "the principles that make the most complex automatic machines possible, as well as the fundamentals of their construction."
Nineteen fifties !! The midway between the first digital computer made by my half-compatriot John Atanasoff  and internet . Almost a human generation span between the former, the book and the later event. Epoch so deep in the past that even television, air travel, rockets and nukes ... were young then.
Same Kondratieff  wave phase btw, which hints towards the historical rhyming of socially important intellectual interests. (On how K-waves imprint on the humanity growth curve - in series of other posts to come).
I must admit here that I've never put my hands and eyes onto this book. But, it is stamped into my mind and memory by Stanislaw Lem  - one of the greatest philosophers of the XXth century, working under the disguise of a Sci-Fi writer, for being caught on the wrong side of the Iron curtain.
''Summa Technologiae'' (1964)  is a monumental work of Lem's, where most issues discussed sound more contemporary nowadays than they were the more than half a century ago when it was built, and for many things also we are yet in the deep past ...
... Lem reports and discussed the following from the aforementioned Pierre de Latil's book.:
''As a starting point will serve a graphic chart classifying effectors, i.e., systems capable of acting, which Pierre de Latil included in his book Artificial Thinking [P. de Latil: Sztuczne mys´lenie. Warsaw 1958]. He distinguishes three main classes of effectors. To the first, the deterministic effectors, belong simple (like a hammer) and complex devices (adding machine, classical machines) as well as devices coupled to the environment (but without feedback) - e.g. automatic fire alarm. The second class, organized effectors, includes systems with feedback: machines with built-in determinism of action (automatic regulators, e.g., steam engine), machines with variable goals of action (externally conditioned, e.g., electronic brains) and self-programming machines (system capable of self-organization). To the latter group belong the animals and humans. One more degree of freedom can be found in systems which are capable, in order to achieve their goals, to change themselves (de Latil calls this the freedom of the "who", meaning that, while the organization and material of his body "is given" to man, systems of that higher type can - being restricted only with respect to the choice of the building material - radically reconstruct the organization of their own system: as an example may serve a living species during biological evolution). A hypothetical effector of an even higher degree also possesses the freedom of choice of the building material from which "it creates itself". De Latil suggests for such an effector with highest freedom - the mechanism of self-creation of cosmic matter according to Hoyle's theory. It is easy to see that a far less hypothetical and easily verifiable system of that kind is the technological evolution. It displays all the features of a system with feedback, programmed "from within", i.e., self-organizing, additionally equipped with freedom with respect to total self-reconstruction (like a living, evolving species) as well as with respect to the choice of the building material (since a technology has at its disposal everything the universe contains).
Longish quote, but every word in it is a worth. When I've read this as a kid back in 1980es ... immediately came to my mind the next, the seventh logical higher effector class.: the worldmaker !!
The degrees of freedom of all the previous six according to the classical taxonomy of de Latil are confined by the rule-set, the local laws of physics.
They are prisoners of an universe. Like birds incapable to reconfig their cage into roomier and cozier ones.
If we regard the laws of nature as code or algorithm, my 7th level effector will be capable to draft and implement itself onto newer and stronger algorithmic foundations. ( Note the seamlessness between computation and robotics in Latil/Lem categorization construct - quite logical indeed, having in mind that software is state of hardware, that matter-form-action are inextricable from each other, but on this in series of other times and posts ... ). Without bond?
So, I wonder:
Where, you reckon, is Tauchain  placed onto the Latil's effectors map?
Guys, after a few articles , , .  - I think I owe you to present a little bit myself and Behest.io , .
I, Karov, am a human, i.e. I'm not robot ( although, my friend @trafalgar is a witness, once I fought all day long with a google form Captcha, but I prefer to blame a software glitch for that ... ).
I occasionally understood that 'karov' is the word for 'near' in Hebrew, but this is pure coincidence.
I'm a lawyer. More than two decades of uninterrupted PQE . In couple of European jurisdictions.
Behest.io is a ... firm. In the sense of :: firm (n.) , or in the very original sense as any firm's only way to be - a signature. Not in the sense (yet) of a legal personhood entity.
As a signature Behest.io is a tool. My tool, which I continuously develop to deliver answers  upon behests  for compliance to various crypto endeavors.
Metaphorically, the Behest.io tool dev target is: if a law firm is a CPU , Behest.io to be crypto legal services ASIC .
Blockchain came too swift, too strong and too global. Like an alien invasion. Legislators and law enforcement can not keep pace. Law and regulations are far from being definite on it.
It is entire internet of jurisdictions out there. Nobody really knows the Law. One can not just go out and shop answers. There is no legal supermarket with neat shelves of turnkey solutions with price tags.
The compliance space is turbulent. Nothing is ready and definite. Very high risk a grey zone to turn red hot. Quicksand minefield.
Crypto lawyer job is not yet an industry, it is inevitably art and craftsmanship. Tailored solutions.
Thus Behest.io is a studio , not conveyor belt mass factory.
Our approach in support is: side by side, thinking together, carefully map the routes ahead, identify the correct questions and precisely craft specific solutions.
On tailored case by case basis. In strict confidence. In all the time dynamic and adaptive fashion. In real time. From entry to exit. All the way navigation from mere idea to end.
So far it sounds like just another advert... I know. But, let me quickly throw some Behest.io preconditional points in an attempt to start sketching the bigger map:
FIRSTLY.: Why ''of Tauchain''?
Since my law school years back in the past millennium I noticed that the Law in all its dimensions.: legislature, legislation, application, enforcement, science, jurisprudence, doctrine ... is somewhat inconsistent and not quite self-sufficient.
I'm now firmly on position that the place of Law is not with the soft sciences of history and literature but among the hard sciences of maths, logic, philosophy and physics.
If we compare the social rules set with a human network protocol code, the Law up to now is obviously not quite automatic and requires too much 'hand drive'. Including, in the rules to make rules, too.
I tried to envision (with my limited tech knowledge), all this quarter of century, various ... systems which eventually could compensate such flaws: virtualization, procedural generation, gamification ... and then Satoshi came. And Ohad Asor appeared.
If we compare our intention and dream of Law with flying - since times immemorial humans wanted to fly like birds, but it took Wright Bros  we to fly ... not like the birds do.
I must herewith admit that closest to my heart are two technological projects.: Tau  and ET3 . They form kinda ... unity, but on that - other times, in series of other posts.
Ohad Asor in his Sep 10, 2016, 8:25 PM essay  very precisely outlined the problem of Law:
''We would therefore be interested in creating a social process in which we express laws in a decidable language only, and collaboratively form amendable social contracts without diving into paradoxes. This is what Tau-Chain is about.''
Exactly! The problem of Law is that it is written in inherently buggy natural human language 'software' and is run on human brains 'hardware' which is faulty for this, for being 'made' to optimize performance of completely other category of tasks. Like ... survival.
We can achieve Law by these means - human natural language and human brains - not more successfully than we could walk from here to the moon.
Tau is the most solid grounded and promising effort to deliver our long dreamed 'rocketry' to take is from here to the Law.
If Law is decidable code, it is specifiable, all intended consequences predictable and granted. Decidable, consistent ... and self-amending. Precisely what the Law is supposed to be. At last. If it is specifiable in exact terms, action code is synthesizable out of it, to feed the legal effectors of all kinds with precise instructions.
Because our societies map to our communications , drastic improvement of our interactions rules is equivalent of immense improvement of the human condition.
The Law as a Tapp (Tau App)? Most definitely. I know no other attempt the issue to be addressed in such a way of pure reason and demonstrated understanding.
This is the reason behind ''for Tauchain'' part of this post's title. It can get us there. We can have the Law, at last.
This is in the Behest.io and mine best selfish interest. Which is: a world of unimaginable freedom and wealth for all.
Behest.io in that sense is ''for Tauchain'' for the perspective the Tau to become ''for Behest''. Realization of my lifetime Legum  project.
Behest.io is not of Tauchain, or of IDNI. It is an independent project of an independent lawyer, with strong current focus on Tau and ET3. Because of the outlined above reasons. In series of upcoming articles I intend to elaborate on my visions and positions on these in general.
SECONDLY.: How exactly is supposed Behest.io to operate before the Tau is in our hands to play with?
All by the books, of course! Legal profession is for compliance, but also it is all about compliance per se. Not just compliance makers and shippers, but must-be compliant the lawyers themselves. Lawyers are strictly local and heavily regulated profession. As it should be.
Not only no lawyer knows all law, but there is not such a thing as global or universal license to provide legal services. Regardless of the 'professional services provider' Big Four  or other hierarchic collab structure - a lawyer is limited to operate only on the territory which his professional 'badge' granting regulator says.
From the other hand Internet and Blockchain are inherently global and penetrate and permeate all jurisdictions as easy as neutrino passes through a planet.
My plan to deal with this ''license to kill (the problems)'' inter-jurisdictional professional license issue is simple:
Quick assembly of full professional license coverage teams. In bespoke to project way. Ad hoc. Where and when needed.
The idea is ... if Behest.io is a screen and the solutions - images on it, the backend machinery of professionals and other resources to be freely reconfigurable and developed and expanded on demand all the time, without the client to be bothered to grok anything else but what's on the screen.
This resembles the aka B2B2X  telecom services business model which is conceptually so new that it does not have a wikipedia article, yet.
So all professional services colleagues welcome to join! In whatever forms we together see fit in every particular occasion.
I'm sure some really groundbreaking fusions will come out of this collab direction alone!
More posts on Behest.io biz philosophy to come.
Hans Moravec  is the patriarch of robotics . The real one, not the Sci-Fi father. Asimov was just the prophet in this scheme of things.
Moravec to Kurzweil is what's Bitcoin to Ethereum and Satoshi to Vitalik.
Sorry, for the rough joke. No offence, Ray! Back in the earler 2000s I bought your books too .
In my humble opinion - aside from the ''reality intratextualization''  concept - the other wisdom jewel of Moravec's - fruit of a life devoted to robotics - is the Moravec's Paradox .
Explained in his own words:
Encoded in the large, highly evolved sensory and motor portions of the human brain is a billion years of experience about the nature of the world and how to survive in it. The deliberate process we call reasoning is, I believe, the thinnest veneer of human thought, effective only because it is supported by this much older and much more powerful, though usually unconscious, sensorimotor knowledge. We are all prodigious olympians in perceptual and motor areas, so good that we make the difficult look easy. Abstract thought, though, is a new trick, perhaps less than 100 thousand years old. We have not yet mastered it. It is not all that intrinsically difficult; it just seems so when we do it.
or with Steven Pinker's :
The main lesson of thirty-five years of AI research is that the hard problems are easy and the easy problems are hard. The mental abilities of a four-year-old that we take for granted – recognizing a face, lifting a pencil, walking across a room, answering a question – in fact solve some of the hardest engineering problems ever conceived...
As I noted in a previous related post of mine , a system's value dynamics is all about how it scales. Preferable of course are systems which make more good to go around than less. Respectively, to come around.
Humanity is a network, and its scaling is stumbled by our innate attentional resources limitations.
Human social interaction is a skill and we naturally have only as much of it.
For now, in the good old hierarchic way , we can't deny that we scale satisfactory well (as compared, lets say, to our DNA-blockchain-fork-out first cousins the chimps ) for collaborating efficiently on successful execution of trivial tasks like empire building or colonization of the Galaxy.
But not all problems we encounter are simple. In fact most problems are more complex than we are capable to grok and master in the hierarchic collaboration mode, which quickly slams into the Shannon's 'brick wall' 
Ohad Asor's Tau  is intended to be humanity upscaler . This project is the first and only one I've discovered so far where the so obvious (after you know it) problem is even identified, stated and addressed.
This means uplifting the individual humans too, because we are literally AIs serially manufactured by our society (cf. feral children ).
It feels easy for us to attend, to remember, to forget, to think, to talk, to work together - so it is extremely Moravec-hard!
Tau is unique approach towards the Moravec-hardness of these problems in the realization that we do not need at all to waste time and resources to mimic nature and copy ourselves and to create high tech homunculi .
The 'problem' is the solution. Don't 'solve' it - just god damn use it!
It is the people who ask questions, upload statements, express tastes and do all that qualia  crap humans usually do.
The machine distills the semantic essence of all the shared thought flow, treats it as wishes specs, and automatically converts into executable code, incl. its own code self-amendment.
As Moravec found out few decades ago  :
The 1,500 cubic centimeter human brain is about 100,000 times as large as the retina, suggesting that matching overall human behavior will take about 100 million MIPS of computer power.
When these processing brain things are really put together in numbers the result is unprecedented power. An unstoppable force. A glimpse into it by Ohad :
It turns out that under certain assumptions we can reach truly efficiently scaling discussions and information flow, where 10,000 people are actually 100 times more effective than 100 people, in terms of collaborative decision making and collaborative theory formation. But for this we'll need the aid of machines, and we'll also need to help them to help us.
Without application of dehumanizing individual upgrades, without to be necessary to understand and reengineer the billions of years of evolutionary capital, but just harness it and use it. (Scaling itself must be scalable, too, ah?)
In my personal up to date limited understanding it seems that it is indeed the HUMANITY what's to be known as the Tau's 'Zennet Supercomputer', and the machines are the ... collab amplifier media, the 'internet' of it. (Ohad, correct me if I'm wrong, please.)
Like laser configurations of minds.
With performance stronger than thought.
NOTE: I have the honor to be in the Tau Team, but all reflections in this post are personally my opinion.
Fuente Original: Artículo Oficial escrito por Ohad Asor y publicado en la web oficial del proyecto idni.org el día 12/03/2018.
Traducción al español: @HippieCycling
Ohad Asor Publicado el 12 de marzo de 2018, a las 6:30 PM
Something Revolutionary In the Crypto Space.
The overwhelming majority of new crypto projects out there fall into 3 main categories:
Now the trillion dollar question is this: is just having a currency or shoving a Turing Complete programming language into the blockchain to allow for smart contracts truly the best use of this decentralized innovation? Ohad Asor, creator and lead developer of Tau, does not think so.
What Is Tau?
Before I start I have to make a confession: I don't truly understand Tau. But I feel that I don't understand it slightly less than people who don't know about it at all, so I'll have a go at explaining it.
Tau is a platform that is designed to scale human collaboration and knowledge building.
Almost every significant piece of technology to date (that isn't about accelerating physical labor) has been primarily focused on the disseminating information or data. The wheel, roads, telephones, the internet are all indispensable achievements that have served to aid getting information from A to B.
But the real value isn't in the data itself, it's from the organization of the information within that data into useful knowledge. While the mere distribution of information is an important step to scaling human progress, it's also only part of the picture. The next step has typically been up to us, the human actors, to use our little brains to distill that information manually until we produce knowledge;
Tau is the first piece of serious technology that is aimed to not only automate the collection of information, but also the production of knowledge, unless you count Netflix's 'AI' recommending 'The Human Centipede' after your toddler has just watched 'A Bug's Life', as successful knowledge discovery made by a machine. Tau is about the industrialization of knowledge creation via taking some of the burden of logical reasoning from us humans and giving it to the machine.
What Can Tau Do?
Ohad has spent years researching and developing Tau. The design is centered around creating a self defining, decidable logic that is expressible under pspace (which is mathematically shown to be the most expressive any self defining and decidable language can be), that will act as a metalanguage for all programming languages defined under Tau.
A trivial example of what this can directly lead to is secure smart contracts. Smart contracts operating under Tau cannot ever give rise to something like the DAO hack - decidable programming languages means one can anticipate the entire spectrum of possible consequences of the code before running it, allowing us to avoid anything unintended. But reliable and secure smart contracts are only a tiny fraction of what the platform can truly offer.
The power of Tau's design will allow it to boast some truly wondrous features including:
Ohad has yet to fully explain how this will be achieved, but by far the most difficult part is creating the initial decidable, self defining logic system that serves as a metalanguage. Many had their doubts but yesterday Ohad announced that the first and most difficult step towards this end has been achieved. The code he has written is a working version of the Tau Meta Language which correctly computed a transitive closure graph. This is a proof of concept of the great things to come!
Now that the initial code is released, Ohad is working on a set of explanations about Tau which will outline it's features and how it'll be able to achieve them in more detail. Tau is notoriously difficult to explain, but it's definitely worth the effort to understand it. I'll keep you updated when his explanations are released.
Who Is The Lead Developer Ohad Asor?
Ohad Asor is a programmer, computer scientist, mathematician and logician from Israel. He attended university at the age of 13 and has extensive experience (30+ years) in programming and mathematics.
Most people know me as the clown on here who just writes jokes along the lines of taking his mom to the prom after his cousin rejected him or some shit, but I sat my university entrance exams at 16 and scored in the top 0.5% of Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank and took a prestigious course at a well known university. I only bring this up to show that I've had no shortage of dealings with what ordinarily would be considered to be extremely intelligent people, but Ohad is on a completely different level.
Ohad Asor is, quite frankly, the most intelligent and knowledgeable person with whom I've ever interacted. There are many geniuses and child prodigies out there, but Ohad has spent virtually every minute of his waking moments studying up until this point in his life, and he likely has an IQ of over 5 standard deviations above the mean to begin with. I have spoken to him and followed his project over the past 8 months, and my assessment and admiration of his abilities has only increased over this time period.
Here is a short video of him explaining the old design of Tau and some of its features. The information is dated as the new design is far superior, but these features remain.
English is Ohad's second language - His native language is C.
How Do I Invest In Tau?
Tau itself has no tokens but Ohad is also building Agoras, the first automated marketplace over the Tau collaborative platform. Agoras tokens are currently traded on Bittrex. It has one of the fairest distributions in the cryptosphere and Ohad is only reserving 3% of the tokens for himself. None of that 20% for the founders, 10% for the developers, 20% for the foundation, 15% for the founders' penis enlargement fund bullshit.
Agoras has made considerable gains over the last few weeks but it's total market cap is still under 100 million at the time of writing, which, to me, represents an incredible opportunity for something potentially revolutionary. If we woke up tomorrow without Bitcoin, things would more or less continue as they did, but if we woke up tomorrow without electricity, the world would be an entirely different place. Indeed Tau aims to be the latter: a truly indispensable piece of technology, which is a status that no crypto project has yet reached.
This article isn't to be taken as investment advice any more than it is to be construed as advice on how to get out of the friend zone without resorting to chloroform. I'm not affiliated nor paid by the Tau team in any way. I have not made a single crypto recommendation in my 8 months of being here until now. I just wanted to share something that I think has immense potential to be truly revolutionary, and it also happens to be the only other crypto investment I hold other than Steem.
Feel free to ask some questions after and I'll try my best to answer them.
Special thanks to @dana-edwards and the Steemit platform for allowing me to discover this project
Tau QQ Group Number: 203884141
IRC for technical questions only, Ohad will generally reply within a day
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.