Voluntary compliance as a necessary feature. By Dana Edwards. Posted in Steemit. September 29, 2018.
Voluntary compliance in moral alignment with the participant
Every platform which is decentralized in my opinion should allow it's users to comply with the laws of their local jurisdiction to the degree which each user thinks is moral. The platform should not enforce the laws of any specific jurisdiction or remove the ability of any user to comply with the laws of their local jurisdiction. This means if a user would like to track and pay taxes the platform should provide a means for users to do this. This means if users would like to go through KYC before interacting with ICOs so that their accounts are whitelisted by banks they should be allowed. This also means that if a user thinks that a certain regulation or rule or law is immoral that they should be allowed to make up their own mind and take their own risks.
In other words platforms should not choose for users what is right and wrong. Platforms should simply provide the tools so that each person can decide how much risk they are willing to accept in alignment with their morality. The ability to comply with the law is necessary for mainstreamability. Mainstreamability ability is about winning the long war rather than the little battle. In order for crypto to have the maximum positive impact on future generations it must go mainstream and escape from the fringe use cases. This applies as much to Steem as it does to Ethereum as it does to Tauchain. Mainstreamability are the key elements which enable mainstream adoption success.
Legal contracts as tokens
Compliance can be modularized, tokenized, decentralized. Legal contracts can become tokens. The risk (and it is real) of money laundering or rogue nations violating sanctions can be reduced by decentralizing AML/KYC. At the same time regional locks in my opinion are one of the worst ideas and should not be technically enforced. Once again compliance should be voluntary but always allowed.
What does it mean to voluntarily comply? A participant can choose to comply to reduce their risks. The participant who does not comply is willing to take the risk of non-compliance. This means compliance is a means of risk reduction. But in a decentralized network such as a decentralized exchange the risk is entirely on the users. The users can decide (and only the users) which level of risk is best for them. Developers of the platform should have no responsibility to decide for the users of the platform what is morally right or what risks are acceptable or unacceptable to take.
“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 .
Bizarre headline, isn't it? Sorry. It just ... coalesced spontaneously as ... a protein folding . Lets try to decompress it. Compression is comprehension . Decompression is experience. Firstly, I'll throw herein three bold statements - big separate mega-topics which I'll soon revisit by furnishing them with or backing them by their due Behest.io  full-fledged articles.:
1. The World is Fiat
I tend to generalize the term of fiat , to not only currency  but to all the Sollen  approach to transactors. In my vocabulary Fiat as an umbrella, general term for all social interaction which requires external enforcement, i.e. all what's not trustless or self-enforcing like morals  or blockchain . The whole system of monetized coercion. Or reciprocal - coercion backed fiat monetization . (Note: monetization of coercion vs coercion of monetization are not related by an OR  operator, but they are typical chicken-and-egg problem  - even the smallest children know that eggs precede chicks!) All what requires trust ...
2. Trust is Force
''You trust 'em only as much as you could make 'em to.''
Coercion or force or violence ... itself, IS currency per se - the primordial, the deeply preceding the emergence of Mankind one, and who manages to rigorize  it quantitatively will get and give us a TOE  unification of ecology and economics, i.e. instantly Nobel prizes! Not sure in which combination of fields. Simultaneously.
3. Money is Mnemonics
E.g. money in all forms is ... accountancy. Or book-keeping. Ledgers. Logs. Databases. Memory. They are even cognates  those - money and memory. Ancient truism.
It comes as necessity from the problem of simultaneity of transactions between autonomous agents, with other words - between automata , or self-thinkers, or those who are black-boxes  to each other. Regardless of whether the economy is mere barter, or it have uplifted one or more of its items to transactor/currency status.
Apparent feature of all accountancy systems is that they possess cardinality  of entries.
Up to now we know single-entry , double-entry  and tripple-entry  book-keeping system.
Not sure if a 'system' where everybody perceives, remembers and acts upon an isolated unshared 'ledger' of records on what's owed, contained only in its head - and runs it the way they could and want ... - counts for zero-entry book-keeping. Pun intended.
Can't wrap my head around negative or fractional numbers of book-keeping entries, nor I know what's the maximum practical and useful number of entries to juggle with. I expect Tau to bring together the, without any shadow of doubt, already available but dispersed across space and time bits and pieces of knowledge on accountancy entries cardinality into a general theory of transaction logging. It is necessary because, you know - an item is money (mnemonic  facility) ... transactor is accelerator , and general theory will give us a tool to know which monetary mechanism design  is the most powerful wealth growth booster.
Satoshi's blockchain is the first and only instance of successful implementation of the triple-entry book-keeping , so far, where credit and debit records and receipt are coined  into one. Self-enforcing log-book is as much (or not more) magical, or deus ex machina  solution then a horseless carriage vs a 'legacy' cart.
The blockchain catered total value is expectedly impressive grower itself. It took only 7-8 years to Bitcoin (and its imitations) to reach ~1% of what took 7-8 THOUSANDS of years to Gold  to get.
BUT, we still live in a predominantly Fiat, double-entry book-keeping world:
Visualize the modern world as a forest of centralized 2-entry ledgers:
From the several hundreds of tree stems - the Central Banks , though the thousands and thousands of commercial banks - fractional reserve franchisees of the Central Banks, down to the individual humans and firms credit-debit records.
A vast centralized fractal of 2-entry ledgers of ledgers. Lined into one by the global meta-ledgers - provided by international institutions like BIS .
Important Note: ... which I must make here - Lots of crap talk we've heard about how Blockchain is against Fiat, how it will replace it, how it frees us from the illths of the ancient regime  . NOTHING like that! The truth is that, for now, we do not have even the slightest idea or hint about how we could decentralize or detrust interpersonal voluntary exchange! Geography and history, e.g. nature and culture are forces to reckon. The propaganda suggestion that fiat money is kinda fake, printed at a wish, valuable only because we all believe in them ... is one of biggest nonsense I've ever heard.
As in any forest, the tree size and power varies. And matters. USD is the Yggdrasil  of the meatspace  of the global fiat mainstream Swartzwald  ! (Just like BTC is in the cyberspace one. It is not occasional at all that both are so perfect systemic benchmark matches.) In the ocean of fiat, USD is a giant landmass, a Pangea which is nearly impossible to go around of. The force of 20 000 golf balls of Plutonium coupled with same number of office dustbins of LiD  . And 1000+ military bases scattered around the world. And comprehensive coverage of the sea routes to guarantee that the global trade goes by the books. And working supremacy of law system as an antidote of internal corruption decay of the system... Shall the USD survive the Blockchaincalypsis? Of course! Taxcoins  are always needed. The runaway crypto-fication of the fiat monetary systems only makes the due payments of geopolitical services more and more unescapable. And more and more precise and fairer. With higher resolution and lower lag.
Backed by force means that the the strongest force is the most trustful. Like all those currencies who belong to the hall of glory of the millennial monumental transactors.: Hellenic drachma  - survived so far as a currency name in the Gulf , Roman solidus , Spanish silver dollar , etc. ... used to be. Mainstreamers - for being backed by the biggest force. (Mentioning the Force, we simply can not go without a Star Wars quote , I'm afraid - the best and most inexorable thesaurus of cliches.)
Lets close now the three side notes of dictionary intro here, and go back to PROCRUSTICS:
First, yes, it is about that antiquity gangsta, the psychopathic dropout of the noble blacksmiths profession - Procrustes .:
''who attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed.''
Secondly, the etymology turtledoves  who explained to us what Behest is , clarify that:
Don't look exactly like pigeons, do they?
Thirdly, Procrustics by the great philosopher Stanislaw Lem . This is from Wikipedia:
''In 1959 science fiction novel Eden by Stanislaw Lem, Procrustics is the name of a fictitious information-theory based social engineering discipline of molding groups within a society and ultimately a society as a whole to behave as designed by secretive hidden rulers, to create a hideous form of social control in which the very existence of the governing powers is denied and each individual appears to themselves to be free yet are being manipulated and controlled. One example described in the novel is "concentration camps" without any guards which are designed so that the prisoners stay inside apparently on their "free" will.''
Last but not least, it is no surprise that this so much meaning laden word entered the vast fields of mathematics, too - , , , to denote so important concepts. Procrustean transformations:
''Hence, it may change the size, but not the shape of an ... object.''
I think this is enough of explanation to tie it up into:
The Fiat is procrustic because it is ripe to be transcaled!
Fiat is saturated. It can not grow the old ways any more. It is really dearer and dearer to be grown. It reached its internal limits.
Fiat (as global fractal integration of all double-entry accountancy books) is a narrative.
Fiat is procrustic, because being unaffordable thing to cover it all: it omits, it cuts off, it keeps out, excludes, discriminates, sequesters ...
As a narrative it tells a story of wealth, but leaves out so vast unsung, though present, riches.
The global fiat bards memory is too weak to memorize it all and they are not clever enough to distinguish the true from false entries ...
The fiat Yggdrasil Norns  fingers are weak to handle all threads and to manage to interweave them all into the meta-ledger ...
Giant mass of economic data left lying in waste, unused. And that's REALLY bad cause the data about the system state is the fuel for its own self-reinforcing positive feedback loop . Yeah, data as the new oil , but literally.
The estimates are that as much as up to 80% of all economic information stays off the record .
Cf.: Hernando de Soto Polar , who estimated that.:
''The existence of such massive exclusion generates two parallel economies, legal and extra legal. An elite minority enjoys the economic benefits of the law and globalization, while the majority of entrepreneurs are stuck in poverty, where their assets—adding up to more than US$10 trillion worldwide—languish as dead capital in the shadows of the law.''
in his 2000, ''The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else'' 
Cf.: aka Bazaaristan .:
''Across the globe, 1.8 billion people -- a quarter of the world's population -- work off the books each day. They are paid in cash for the goods they sell and the services they provide, and due to their ubiquity, there's a word for these merchants in nearly every language. As Robert Neuwirth reports, in French colonies, they're known as débrouillards -- self-starters, entrepreneurs, all outside the bureaucratic system. They might be vendors selling revolutionary goods in Egypt's Tahrir Square, Nigerians selling mobile phones, or the guy down the street hawking flowers on the corner. Whoever they are, they work in the world's fastest-growing economy: System D. As Neuwirth writes, System D, slang for "l'economie de la débrouillardise," is the crucial blackmarket, providing opportunities where the regulated global economy has failed. Its value is estimated at roughly $10 trillion, meaning, as Neuwirth points out, that, "If System D were an independent nation, united in a single political structure -- call it the the United Street Sellers Republic (USSR) or, perhaps, Bazaaristan -- it would be an economic superpower, the second largest economy in the world." The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that two-thirds of the world's workers will be employed in System D as soon as 2020.''
Cf.: the world unbanked population phenomenon 
''Two billion people worldwide do not have a bank account or access to a financial institution via a mobile phone, or any other device.''
The ancient worldmap picture up at the bizarre headline, denotes exactly this 'Here Be Dragons' situation of the Blockchain-unboosted yet Fiat finance.
All these examples demonstrate not a conspiracy of a kind, but mere and obvious fiat unscaling symptomatics.
Probably in the old centralized way, for a double-entry book-keeping system in order to check, record and run all facts of relevant economic information, would have to consume more than what the economy makes as a whole! :)
This inevitably crosses with the important topics of the network scaling effects - for merely linking all the dots means automatically n^2 bigger economy . Without to add anything new, but by just noticing and accounting of the existing wealth.
We have probably dozens of TIMES bigger economy than we realize! Tantalus suffering .
On the comparative costs of the accounting systems there are three studies, , ,  which I particularly value, and which put into a neat perspective together with the network scaling effects  are definitely subject of separate near future blog posts of mine.
Now scroll-up back to the ''Important note'' above, please.
Blockchain is not the Fiat killer. It is its Transcaler  !!
And Tauchain being - together with so many other things - the generalization and the generalizer of all possible blockchains in particular and all possible accountancies in general - is the transcaler of the transcalers.
And as effect - the ultimate economy (incl. economy governance ) Accelerator .
The power of ambiguity and of ambiguity minimization in communication. By Dana Edwards on Steemit. June 1, 2018.
Formal communication benefits from ambiguity minimization.
So what exactly do I mean by formal communication? Well when we think of how human beings communicate with machines it is in a formal language. This formal language requires minimized ambiguity for security analysis (how can we analyze code if we cannot effectively interpret it?). The other problem is that the machines require for example that if... then... else and similar conditional statements are well defined and unambiguous.
Is it possible to show that a grammar is unambiguous?
To show a grammar is unambiguous you have to argue that for each string in the language there is only one derivation tree. This is how it would be done theoretically speaking.
In computer science, an ambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which there exists a string that can have more than one leftmost derivation or parse tree, while an unambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which every valid string has a unique leftmost derivation or parse tree. Many languages admit both ambiguous and unambiguous grammars, while some languages admit only ambiguous grammars.
Specifically we know that deterministic context free grammars must be unambiguous. So we know unambiguous grammars exist. It appears the strategy is ambiguity minimization with regard to formal languages (such as computer programming languages).
For computer programming languages, the reference grammar is often ambiguous, due to issues such as the dangling else problem. If present, these ambiguities are generally resolved by adding precedence rules or other context-sensitive parsing rules, so the overall phrase grammar is unambiguous. The set of all parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a parse forest.
The parse forest is an important concept to note. All possible parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a "parse forest". This concept is key to understanding the strategy of ambiguity minimization. So we can in practice minimize ambiguity and we know for certain that deterministic context free grammars admit an unambiguous grammar but what does that mean? What are the benefits of unambiguous language in general?
A benefit of ambiguity minimization
Simple English is a form of controlled English designed to minimize ambiguity in English. This is important because by using simple English to codify the rules or write the laws it puts it in a language where there is less of a computational expense (in brain power) to process and interpret the statements.
In one of my older blogposts @omitaylor commented and in one of her future posts she asked about the topic of love. In specific her post was titled: "What Does LOVE Mean To YOU"
Her post highlights the fact that there are different love languages and that we don't all speak the same love language. Ambiguity here is actually not a good thing but the simple fact is when someone speaks about love how do we know they are talking about the same thing? As a result we often seek an agreed upon or formally defined "love concept" where we all agree it's love. This is not trivial to find and as a result a topic like love is not easy to discuss in any serious manner. Unambiguous communication or to be more precise (minimized ambiguity) would allow Alice to discuss with Bob the topic of love in a way where they both know exactly what the other is referring to in terms of behavioral expectations, emotions/feelings, etc.
If Alice agrees to love Bob then Bob has no way to determine what Alice means unless he and she agree on a mutually defined concept of love. This highlights how agreement requires very good communication and how minimizing ambiguity can be beneficial at least in this example.
Ambiguity minimization makes sense when you are following a principle of computational kindness. That is if Alice would like to reduce the computational burden on Bob then she can reduce or minimize the ambiguity of her sentence. This is because in order for Bob to interpret an ambiguous sentence Bob must in essence sort all possible interpretations of that sentence from most likely interpretation to least likely interpretation, and before he can even sort he must first search in order to find all possible or at least plausible interpretations.
This is very computationally expensive for Bob but very cheap for Alice. Alice knows exactly what she means but Bob has no clue what Alice REALLY means.
A benefit of ambiguity
There are other examples where increasing ambiguity could be beneficial, such as perhaps when the communication is less than formal, or to share a stream of consciousness without turning it into a formal communication. Humor for example rides on ambiguity and a good joke may have multiple layers. Art also leverages ambiguity because it's perhaps meant to be interpreted 20 different ways all to produce a certain desired affect.
Ambiguity allows more meaning to be packed into fewer words. This in a sense is a sort of compression scheme. So if a sentence has multiple possible meanings the levels or meanings are still finite. It's a fixed amount of meanings and so theoretically speaking a search can be conducted. In fact this is what a human being does when interpreting natural language where a sentence can have multiple meanings (they do a search for all possible interpretations of that sentence). The problem with this is that it is computationally expensive as a process at least for the human being to try to figure out all possible interpretations of a sentence.
Lawyers when they do their work are working with a specific knowledge base of common legal sentences and common interpretations known in their profession but the rest of us might see a sentence in lawyer-speak and not really know what it means because we will not know the common interpretations. This is a big problem of course because to form agreements between two parties both parties need to have a common understanding (a kind of knowledge symmetric understandability) allowing them both to interpret roughly the same sentence to mean the same thing.
Logo by CapitanArt
Enlaces / Links
Logo by CapitanArt
Archivos / Archives
Suggested readings to better understand the Tau ecosystem, Tau Meta Language, Tau-Chain and Agoras, and collaborate in the development of the project.
Lecturas sugeridas para entender mejor el ecosistema Tau, Tau Meta Lenguaje, Tau-Chain y Agoras, y colaborar en el desarrollo del proyecto.