I am not a computer person but this specific issue is so central on a most fundamental level (I actualy spent an hour arguing with Ohad on this point, having him disagree with me but yet I got up the next day more convinced that I am right,   so Im trying to argue it again  ) I insisting that tau by its design as a clean slate is thus  an ever changing rule machine and as such it will be able to revers any rule to the beginning to the first rule that was established. and.... that is eventually all up to computing power and not just logic.!!!! Logic will enforce removing one or the other contradicting fact once it arise, but what will ditemrani which rule is computing power not seniority. if more power is choosing to run the code with one contradicting rule over the of the other contradicting rule, the next rule is set by the "stronger" not the "earlier".

As long as rules are not contradicting  its all go smooth, also if a change only contradict the logic it will be fix on the next block, but if my interest is one and it contradicts another party interest then the computing power become a voting power. and this is where the tau begin to be really interesting.

In a way the tau is designed for "attacks" its design give the answer to any attack since one will need to invest power in keeping a rule from changing at each block if there is a contradicting interest. Thus if most users will be offended by a new rule they will reject it on the next block and the attacker will have to spend again the same power as in the previews block to maintain the change from being revers. basically such a system is immune to attacks.

But far greater then this, such system is the key to an evolution of a true intelligence. Intelligence is not the ability to learn new rules but to change and exchange existing rules. It is also the most essential character to allow the most economic system of life itself, which is the freedom to make mistakes. Assume a rule according to prediction and change it according to feedback on the results.

So I am yet to understand if the tau is such but again, having the tau start as clean slate in must be such. and that is because the building blocks are not rules, but rather logic carried on by computing power.  

And if I am wrong and the tau rules can not be reversed based on computing power, then is will dry off very fast. and will have to restart every time since it will never be able to fix it self or adjust to meet the best possible results for all participants (game theory style) and will never have the incentives to put computing power into maintaining a voting power.

This is a rather *critical* aspect of tau to understand, as it is central to both how tau is able to "reject things" as they are coming in to the system, as well as how it is able to retract or "delete" knowledge that it has previously accepted.  When a new block arrives at a node, potentially containing some new facts/rules, it is run through a series of checks.  The block and it's contents are first speculatively added to the KB, and then the reasoner performs a consistency check.  If the block itself is found to be invalid then it is rejected and ignored, and the speculative addition is rolled back.  If the block itself is consistent, then it's contents are each checked for consistency in turn.  If some rule in the incoming block is contradictory to what is in the KB (meaning some rule addition allows the KB to derive false) then the offending fact/rule that was already existing in the KB is considered deleted (retracted) and is removed from the kb for any subsequent reasoning.

For (a trivial and contrived) example, let's say in block 5 it is asserted (by whatever established means in the existing rules, this is unimportant detail) that {<HMC> a tau:SuperAdmin; social:likes food:cheese.} asserting that I am a dairy loving user in a special role, and then in block 10 we decide that this special role is no good, and assert the rule {?x a tau:SuperAdmin}=>false.  During processing of block 10, when it is accepted as a valid next block, the conflict between the new rule and the existing fact is discovered.  The source of the conflict from the KB side is traced to the offending fact from block 5, and this fact is removed from the kb.  The fact that I like cheese remains, block 5 is still considered otherwise valid, and the new rule from block 10 is inserted into the kb.  If block 11 tries to re-assert that I am a super admin, it will fail it's initial consistency check, and will not be accepted.  Now if in another block we later come in and introduce a rule of {{?x a tau:SuperAdmin}=>false}=>false we could then re-assert me as a super admin.  (These could even happen both within the same block, as long as the rule was in an earlier transaction in the block than the fact.)

So this is like another approach to communism or something like that? Lets give everyone their share and see what will happen?
Unfortunately as we know from history this is not possible to equally distribute wealth it can be achieved for short period of time.

I too, think that current wealth distribution is not good and I would very much like to change it, but giving money to poor is not the best option.
And honestly I am not sure what needs to be done about that, to make things better and not worse.

it will be on LTB https://letstalkbitcoin.com/ under the counterparty weekly update this coming sunday. Robert Ross who is the community director, is doing the interviews.   

makes me wonder.....

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

The value, here, is not in the money but in the message.

Your worth, to me, is nothing to do with your coin and everything to do with your perspective.
I don't want the coin, I want the continuation of the endeavor itself.

The coin is not fun.  The presentation is the fun.  (So that is where the value is!)

You give us much more than the coin token ever could.

Don't stop the performance of the art for the sake of the performance of the coin, such would be a tragedy!

...NO WORRIES...

The value, here, is not in the money but in the message.

Your worth, to me, is nothing to do with your coin and everything to do with your perspective.
I don't want the coin, I want the continuation of the endeavor itself.

The coin is not fun.  The presentation is the fun.  (So that is where the value is!)

You give us much more than the coin token ever could.

Don't stop the performance of the art for the sake of the performance of the coin, such would be a tragedy!

...NO WORRIES...

The value, here, is not in the money but in the message.

Your worth, to me, is nothing to do with your coin and everything to do with your perspective.
I don't want the coin, I want the continuation of the endeavor itself.

The coin is not fun.  The presentation is the fun.  (So that is where the value is!)

You give us much more than the coin token ever could.

Don't stop the performance of the art for the sake of the performance of the coin, such would be a tragedy!

...NO WORRIES...

NILI, is there a link for the interview?  podcast?  Info please.

This coming Sunday Nov 8th LTB (Lets Talk Bitcoin) will air an interview with me in which I present and explain the Art concept of my coins and their value base .