Tauchain: The Social Dispersed Computer introduced as a Social Network? By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. October 12, 2018.
What might a Tau Operating System via a Tau Social Dispersed Computer function like?
We know from tauchain.org that the first iteration of Tau is to be a discussion platform not too dissimilar from Facebook. Of course this would simply be the front end or the "face" of what could behind the scenes evolve toward a social dispersed computer complete with a dispersed operating system. The resources have to be managed and a kernel could provide for this in a manner not dissimilar to what we see with EOS. The Agoras or AGRS token specifically represents "resources" as it is the tokenization of resources for whichever application Tauchain will use.
TML provides the basis from which to create the necessary languages to produce a dispersed operating system computer. Zennet even has an algorithm which Ohad himself worked on for the purpose of calculating the resource requirements. All minds will be able to contribute towards the computational resources (at least in theory) of Tauchain.
Because of Zennet there may in fact not be a limit to the amount of computation resources which we could throw at the super computer. It will of course depend on resource management which is where a kernel likely comes into play because any smart apps built to run on Tau will have to ask for resources. Resource management is one of the core functions of a kernel and of an operating system which is why I think it is likely that Tauchain will have one. I think the Ethereum route shows problems with scaling as applications also have to compete for resources in a way where the network cannot self manage it. Cryptokitties for example can render the whole Ethereum network lagged and if this is a computer then it could mean a nonsense app could disrupt more critical apps.
A prime example of a potential smart app for Tauchain
An example (which may or may not be feasible) is a health and fitness app. The app in theory could allow any user to provide data such as genetic information, blood test results, exercise tracking, blood pressure, blood sugar and anything else. All of this could provide a feedback loop back to the patient on how to improve their health over time based on the knowledge of Tau. As technology gets better the users could add more devices to provide more data for a better feedback loop. As technology evolves FGPAs could be added to meet the demand for calculations and storage can be rented as well.
An operating system could give priority to this kind of app by load balancing the resources. How would it know to do this? Tau could learn the morals, legal ramifications, and a consensus can emerge that health related apps deserve a premium access to resources because it can save lives.
''We live in a world in which no one knows the law.''
Ohad Asor, Sept 11, 2016
I continue herewith with sharing my contemporary state-of-grok  of the up to now four  scriptures of the aka newtau . Sorry for the delay, but it comes mostly from the efforts to contain the outburst of words, catalyzed by the very exegetic process of such a rich content, into a reader-friendly shorter form.
The subject of vivisection textographically identifies as the first three paragraphs of ''Tau and the Crisis of Truth'', Ohad Asor, Sep 11, 2016 .
The four core themes extracted are ennumerated bellow, with as modest as not to sidetrack the thought and to not spoil the original message, streak of comments of mine.:
As I guy who's immersed in Law for more than quarter of century  I can swear with both hands on my heart in the notion of unknowability of Law.
Since my youth years in the law school  I was asking myself how it is possible at all to have 'rule of law'  in case any legal system ever known required humans to operate !?
It seemed that the only requisite or categorcal difference between mere arbitrary 'rule of man'  and the 'rule of law' was that in some isolated cases some ruling men happened to be internally programmed by their morals  to produce 'rule of law' appearance effects by 'rule of man' means.
Otherwise 'rule of law' done via 'rule of man' poses extremely serious threats of law to be used by some to exploit and harm others.
In that line of thoughts my conclusion was that the Law is ... yet to come.
What we know as Law is not good networking protocol software of mankind as such, but rather we see comparatively rare examples of individually well programmed ... lawyers.
On the wings of a technological breakthrough, just like: flying came with the invention of airplanes and moonwalk needed the advent of rocketry, or to remember without to stay alive - the writing. The Law is an old dream. If we judge by the depth of the abyss of floklore - one of the humanity's most ancient dreams, indeed. Needless to repeat myself that this was what sucked me into Tau as relentlessly as a black hole spagetification  :)
The referred by Ohad frustration by Law of the great Franz Kafka  expressed in his book The Trial  becomes very understandable for Kafka's epoch lacking the comforting hope in a technology which we already have - the computers - and the overall progress in the field of logic, mathematics, engineering ... forming a self-reinforcing loop centered around this sci-tech of artificial cognition.
Similarly to the nuclear fusion, which is always few decades away, but the Fusion gap closes noticeably nowadays , we are standing on the cliff of a Legal gap.
The mankind's heavy involvement in cognition technologies, especially in the last several decades, outlined multiple promising directions of further development, which seem to bring us closer to abilities to compensate the fundamental deficiencies of Law and in fact to finally bring it into existence.
It took entire Ohad Asor, however, to identify the major reasons why the Law is bottlenecked out of our reach yet, and to propose viable means to bridge us through that Legal gap... The other side is already in sight.
It is in the first place the language to blame !
The human natural language . Our most important atribute as species. The mankind maker. The glue of society. It just emerged, it hasn't been created. It has rather ... patterns, vaguely conventional, than intentionally coined set of solid rules. There ain't firm rules to change its rules, either ... The natural human language is mostly wilderness of untamed pristine naked nature, dotted here and there with very expensive and hard to install and maintain ''arteftacts'' . Leave it alone out of the coercion of state mass media, mass education and national language institutes and it falls back into host of unintelligible dialects. Even when aided by the mnemonic amplifier which we call writing.
Ambiguity is characteristic of the natural language, a feature in poetry and politics, but a deadly bug in logic and law.
We'll put aside for now the postulate of impossibility of a single universal language to revisit it later when its exegetic turn comes. In another chapter onto another scripture. Likewise, not in this chapter we'll cover the neurological human bottlenecks which are targetted to be overcome by Tau. Lets observe the sequence of author's thoughts and to not fast forward.
Instead of that I'll dare to share with you my own hypothesis about why the natural human languages are so. (I'm smiling while I type this, cause I can visualize Ohad's reaction upon reading such frivolous lay narrative. I hope he being too busy will actually not to.) To say that the human languages are just too complex does not bring us any nearer to decent explanation. Many logic based languages are more than a match of the natural human ones in terms of expressiveness and complexity. It shouldn't be that reason.
My suspicion is rather that the natural human languages pose such a Moravec hardness  for being not exactly languages. Languages are conveyors of meaning. Human languages convey not meaning, but indexes or addresses or tags of mind states. The meaning is the mind state. Understanding between humans is function of not only shared learnt syntaxi, but also of shared lives. Of aggregation of similar mind states which to be referred by matching word keys.
If this is true it is another angle for grokking the solution of human users leaning towards the machine by use of human intelligible Machinish, instead of Tau waiting the language barrier to be broken and machines to start speaking and listening Humanish.
In a nutshell we yet wait the Law to come cuz Law is not doable in Humanish. Bad software. And the other side of the no-law coin is that the humans are no cognitive ASICs . We do congnition only meanwhile and in-order-to do what other animals do - to survive. Bad hardware.
In order law to become law it must become handsfree .
Not humans to read laws, but laws to read laws.
The technology to enable that looks on an arm's length.
Ok, so far we butchered the law and the language. What's left?
The nature and essence of human language brought one of the most harmful and devastating notions ever. Literally, a thought of mass destruction.
The ''crisis of truth''. The wasteland left by the toxic idea spilover of ''there is no one truth'' or even ''there ain't truth'' at all. This is not only abstract, philosophical problem. Billions of people actually got killed for somebody else's truth.
Not occasionally the philosophers who immersed themselves into this pool are nicknamed 'Deconstructivist' . Following back their epistemic genealogy, we see btw, that they are rooted rather in faith than in reasoning, but this is another story.
The general problem of truth, of which the problem of law is just a private case, opens up two important aspects:
Number one, is that all knowledge is conjectural to truth and that, truth is an asymptotic boundary - forever to close on but never to reach. Like speed of light or absolute zero. Number two, is that human languages make pretty lousy vehicles to chase the truth with.
If really words are just to match people's thoughts together, then there are thoughts without words and words without thoughts. Words mismatch thoughts, so how to expect they to bridge thoughts to things? Entire worlds on nonsensical wording emerge, dangerously disturbing the seamless unity of things and thoughts. Truth displaced.
''But can we at least have some island of truth in which social contracts can be useful and make sense?''
This island of shared truth is made of consensus  bedrock and synchronization  landmass.
Thuth and Law self-enforced. From within instead of by violence from without. And in self-referenial non-regressive way.
''We therefore remain without any logical basis for the process of rulemaking, not only the crisis of deciding what is legal and what is illegal." 
Peter Suber with his ''The Paradox of Self-Amendment: A Study of Law, Logic, Omnipotence, and Change''  proposed a rulemaking solution which he called Nomic .
''Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move.'' 
The merit of Nomic is that it really eliminates the illths of the infinite regress  of laws-of-changing-the-laws-of-changing-the-laws, ad infinitum, by use of transmutable self-referrenial rules. But Nomic suffers from number of issues - the first one, in the spotlight of that chapter, being the fact that we still remain with the “crisis of truth” in which there is no one truth, and the other ones - like sclability of sequencing and voting - we'll revisit in their order of appearance in the discussed texts.
The aka 'newtau'  went past the inherent limitations of the Nomic system and resolves the 'crisis of truth' problem.
The next few chapters will dive into Decidability and how it applies to provide solution to the problems described above.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-intro
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-the-two-towers
 - http://www.idni.org/blog/tau-and-the-crisis-of-truth.html
 - http://www.behest.io/
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/behest-for-tauchain
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
 - https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Despair-Environmentalists-Pseudo-Scientists-Antihumanism/dp/159403737X
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_language
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/tau-through-the-moravec-prism
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/manipulation
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization
 - http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/index.htm
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
 - the illustration is a painting courtecy of the author Georgi Andonov https://www.facebook.com/georgi.andonov.9674?tn-str=*F
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
Consensus Morality and Tauchain | Consensus Gentium. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. September 15, 2018.
An ancient criterion of truth, the consensus gentium (Latin for agreement of the people), states "that which is universal among men carries the weight of truth" (Ferm, 64). A number of consensus theories of truth are based on variations of this principle. In some criteria the notion of universal consent is taken strictly, while others qualify the terms of consensus in various ways. There are versions of consensus theory in which the specific population weighing in on a given question, the proportion of the population required for consent, and the period of time needed to declare consensus vary from the classical norm.
In the past I made a controversial statement that the law is amoral. This statement I made is based on a simple understanding of legal positivism. Take note that I am not a legal scholar or legal philosopher. My background is in ethical philosophy and political philosophy. That being said if we look at the ideas behind legal positivism it leads to the conclusion that law and morality have nothing to do with each other. In this post I will try to clarify some of my thoughts on this topic and also address a question I was asked about whether Democracy is moral or immoral. I will also discuss the concept of consensus morality and the implications it could have on Tauchain which by design will be permitted to have law(s). Will the law(s) in Tauchain be moral or immoral? Is it possible to align a moral framework with the creation of all laws in Tauchain? Which moral framework and will it be reached by consensus?
In order to understand a lot of my post we first have to consider the question of what is consensus morality? So in order to discuss this topic I will divide morality up into; private morality, public morality. This also introduces the question of whether public morality is authentic or coerced as it depends on how it emerges.
Private morality is what you internally think or feel is right or wrong. This could be because you did some sophisticated calculation as a consequentialist or it could merely be that you feel a certain kind of way about it. In your opinion it is considered wrong. For example you could say: "eating meat is wrong" and this would be your personal opinion. This is an expression on how you feel about eating meat. Now if you say "eating meat is wrong because it promotes animal suffering" this is also an expression of your opinion but you now have a goal attached which is to avoid promoting animal suffering. The goal of not promoting animal suffering suggests that you value minimization of animal suffering as a kind of optimization strategy.
If you still you follow, private morality can also be based on your religious convictions where because the bible says it is wrong or because you were taught the golden rule that it is in your opinion wrong to do behaviors which violate these teachings. The golden rule is an example of a heuristic rule. There are many such rules which people follow including the example from Kant (categorical imperative) but it is still just an opinion based on adherence to a heuristic rule. We can also consider the non agression principle an example of a heuristic rule (a heuristic rule is a mental shortcut which people take because they believe it leads to good results most of the time).
Public morality on the other hand is a different kind of morality entirely. A private individual has a private morality because that individual is only responsible for themselves in their decisions. A public individual is in a position where other people have a stake in what they are doing. For example a CEO of a company cannot simply do what they think is right because the other shareholders have funds at stake. The CEO has a fiduciary duty which outweighs their personal opinions on what is right and wrong. This fiduciary duty is to the shareholders of the company and is both a legal and ethical obligation. In the case of a public company the rightness or wrongness of a decision if the company weighs consequences is based on data. For example a company might rely on focus groups to determine what a customer might want. A company would have to rely on spiritual advisers, ethical focus groups and determine what the shareholders (and customers) would perceive as right. This is because if the CEO does not do what is in the best interest of the shareholders and customers then the CEO will simply be replaced by another CEO who will.
Public morality is reached by some process which results in a moral consensus. The moral consensus of 2018 is not going to be the same as the moral consensus of 1969. This is to say that moral attitudes change over time. A company which seeks to exist and remain profitable for decades must remain in good moral standards for these decades. The only way a company can remain aligned with current moral trends is through a tactic of data analysis. In other words data science is how "right" and "wrong' are determined. For example public sentiment is tracked and from that the marketing team knows where the line in the sand is and what line not to cross in their marketing campaign. The phrase "we went too far" is common in business because going too far simply means to push the boundaries on what is acceptable (or unacceptable). This also can become problematic because if a company bets on a moral consensus in the 1800s (slavery is right) then that company might find after the Civil War (slavery is wrong) and now have to change their opinion. In other words the moral consensus is always changing and is in essence producing moral populism.
Consensus morality on Tauchain
Consensus morality is essentially a publicly recognized framework for right and wrong. Consensus morality on Tauchain for example could be arrived at if we simply have the discussions on topics of ethics. Over time our discussions will converge in such a way so as to produce a consensus morality. That is a moral attitude of the day, of the year, etc as it is merely what is currently the popular opinion and sentiment on what is right and what is wrong. So consensus morality is in my opinion likely to be a very important concept going forward and is a concept which Tauchain (and blockchains like Steem) may enable.
Consensus morality and potential problems
So the question I was asked is about democracy. The idea a person put forth to me was that democracy is immoral because it is a form of coercion. I do not personally buy into this idea that democracy is inherently immoral or inherently coercive. I will say that democracy implemented in the wrong way can become coercive. This is why the emphasis on privacy may be a requirement. If there is no privacy then all votes could be coerced. If the idea is to have a network which is truly moral then we would require that every moral opinion be expressible. Moral opinions which are unpopular are censored or discouraged from being expressed in a transparent ecosystem. This means a transparent ecosystem may in fact under certain circumstances produce a coerced consensus morality. That is that the votes which are public and attributable to certain individual may be mere virtue signals rather than honest (authentic) opinions on what is right and wrong.
As a result this transparency may skew the results of any poll about any subject. A private or anonymous poll can capture a result which in theory expresses some true opinion. In addition there is the possibility of futarchy to allow for prediction markets and other mechanisms to allow for true sentiment on moral questions to be discovered. My answer to the question is that whilst democracy is not inherently wrong it is also not inherently right. Democracy is a tool which when used in the right circumstances may be best suited for achieving the ends. If no better tool exists to achieve the ends then democracy may in fact be the choice which leads to the least bad consequences which compared to other potential choices. That being said the ideal of consequentialism is to over time reduce the wrongness and increase the rightness by measuring the consequences of every choice; such as private ballot voting vs transparent voting.
Privacy has both it's risks and its benefits with regard to consequences. The benefits include coercion resistance. The risks on the other hand include increased ability to bribe and thus coerce. So the idea being that while in theory a person with privacy can express an authentic opinion (have genuine speech rights) it is also true that anyone could be anonymously (privately) be selling their opinion and thus their vote. It is going to be a challenge to determine when privacy is the right tool for the job and when transparency is the right tool for the job.
In the positivist view, the "source" of a law is the establishment of that law by some socially recognised legal authority. The "merits" of a law are a separate issue: it may be a "bad law" by some standard, but if it was added to the system by a legitimate authority, it is still a law.
Legal positivism states that the law and morality are not one in the same. Just because something is legal it does not mean it is moral. Just because something is illegal it does not mean it is immoral. From this basis I reached a conclusion that because immoral laws exist (some laws are moral) that the law as a whole is amoral. That is to say that whether a law can be made or unmade does not demend on whether the law produces good consequences or even desirable consequences. We could for example look at the drug laws and war on drugs to see examples of policies which produce mass incarceration but was that the intended consequence? It would seem the drug laws would have to be immoral according to consequentialism unless the intended consequence was mass incarceration. If the intended consequence was harm reduction then the current drug laws are ineffective. What do these laws actually achieve? It doesn't really matter because the law is amoral. To align the law with morality is also problematic because it would only be able to align with public morality which under consequentialism may also often lead to bad or unintended consequences.
A potential solution is to allow participants in the ecosystem to rate the laws over time. Laws which receive a higher rating or lower rating would provide a feedback loop indicating when a law should be replaced. This is something that we don't seem to have in the current legal system or if we do have it then what is actually done if a lot of people express the opinion that a particular law is immoral or perhaps not moral enough? If every law on Tauchain could be rated, reviewed, discussed continuously, and improved indefinitely, then we may actually get somewhere.
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.
Tau-Chain. Programmable Decentralized P2P Network based on Ontologies and Reasoning. By Judith Jakubovics. March 31, 2015.
By Judith Jakubovics - BizDev at the Omni Foundation.
It’s turning out to be another exciting and productive week! The Omni Foundation is privileged to provide a platform to so many innovative projects. Omni allows for the issuance of Smart Properties and assets on the Bitcoin blockchain, and we like to share some of the leading projects using the platform and protocol.
Today, I would like to introduce TAU CHAIN.
“If law-making is a game, then it is a game in which changing the rules is a move.” – Peter Suber presenting Nomic
Tau-chain is a fully decentralized P2P network being a generalization of many centralized and decentralized P2P networks, including the Blockchain. Its interpretations, uses, and consequences are far from being a P2P network only, and include software development, legal, gaming, mathematics and sciences, logic, crypto-economies, social networks, rule-making, democracy and votes, software repositories (like decentralized Github+Appstore/Google Play), decentralized storage, software approval and verification, even “doing your homework in History or Math” in some sense (stronger sense that search engines), and many more aspects.
Tau Chain uses the language of Ontologies to unify the languages of:
The Software Client
a) Stores the ontology of local rules
b) Determines the actions using a REASONER
a) Are tools that infer new rules or conclusions based on old ones
b) This is done intelligently, using pure logical reasoning + supply proofs of the results.
TAU CHAIN NODE – is therefore, an intelligent agent that is able to communicate with other agents, at the very same language which is human readable.
TAU CHAIN NODE can communicate with other languages, like HTTP, once implemented in RDF.
τ -chain node is an intelligent agent able to communicate with other agents, at the very same language they’re written with, which is quite human-readable. It can communicate with other languages as well, like HTTP, once implemented in RDF.
The rules of the network are determined by its users. Conversely, many independent “universes” can be created over τ -chain, that may or may not share τ ’s timestamping. They can also reference to each other, allowing code-reuse: recall that rules are code, since Tau Chain has a unified language. Moreover: it provides an ability to implement Decidable computer programs with RDF, namely DTLC languages rather Turing Complete ones.
The implications τ -chain node is an intelligent agent able to communicate with other agents, at the very same language they’re written with, which is quite human-readable. It can communicate with other languages as well, like HTTP, once implemented in RDF.
Arrow of time is brought into the network using the Blockchain algorithm. Items can get into a Merkle tree that will be signed by a miner, roughly speaking.
The network will also function an RDF-speaking distributed storage, namely Kademlia DHT, letting hashes of items to be time-stamped in a mechanism which is up to the rules of those languages will be described later on.
If you want to know more about TAU CHAIN – please visit here: http://www.idni.org
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.