Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network

[ohad]

thanks klosure!

on a different topic: i was speaking with Dor and he raised the possibility to divide all tokens among all synereo's (amp) holders, either current holders or in their upcoming crowdsale, as it will increase interest in our project. what do you people think?

[1714204845]

1714204845

[jibble]

thanks klosure!

on a different topic: i was speaking with Dor and he raised the possibility to divide all tokens among all synereo's (amp) holders, either current holders or in their upcoming crowdsale, as it will increase interest in our project. what do you people think?

I honestly think that is a terribly idea .

It will increase interest in free money and dumping , if they are being given away, a large majority wont care about the project

[klosure]

thanks klosure!

on a different topic: i was speaking with Dor and he raised the possibility to divide all tokens among all synereo's (amp) holders, either current holders or in their upcoming crowdsale, as it will increase interest in our project. what do you people think?

Well, if Synereo will agree to sharedrop an equivalent amount of AMP on Agora holders, I guess that could be a very workable deal as far as I'm concerned!

Actually, and although this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, I'm increasingly convinced that Tau would be an ideal plateform for Synereo. Social networks are heavily reliant on linked data, semantic models and logical inference which are core constituants of Tau's DNA. Synereo also seems to be leaning more and more toward a functional paradigm. I even had a doubt when reading this conversation where Lucius Greg Meredith lectures Vitalik Butterin about the brokenness of Ethereum's assumption that a max gaz cost can practically be computed for random turing complete contracts that may call other contracts in a possibly infinite recursion. I was almost expecting that Greg was going to mention Tau and MLTT. But instead he mentionned Special-K and Pi-calculus. Haven't dug it, but from the outset it does seem that Special-K would be a good fit in Tau.

Now from a functional perspective, if we add Agora to the mix, the synergies are becoming mind blowing. Doing logical inference and large scale principal component analysis on a massive dataset not only is a good application of Tau, but also requires large amount of distributed computational power which Zennet is all about. The typical use case shown in Synereo's marketing materials is a social network that allows professionals to rate each other, list their services and hire other professionals. Again something that is of a troubling complementarity with Agora as a job market where the focus is on the commoditization of work as a form of provable computation, and its pricing.

I'm probably getting a bit ahead of myself, but I do get this bizarre gut feeling that Zennet, Synereo and Agora would be an explosive combination, and a perfect fit for Tau. It's also a remarkable coincidence that both projects are based in Israel and that the developers appear to know each other.

Edit: typos

[BoscoMurray]

Nice work dude

[honesthodler]

Some update on the situation.

Sir, you are a boss!

[e1ghtSpace]

thanks klosure!

on a different topic: i was speaking with Dor and he raised the possibility to divide all tokens among all synereo's (amp) holders, either current holders or in their upcoming crowdsale, as it will increase interest in our project. what do you people think?

I honestly think that is a terribly idea .

It will increase interest in free money and dumping , if they are being given away, a large majority wont care about the project

I agree with this. Most holders will treat it as free BTC and probably dump it.

[mr.coinzy]

I also think that no coins should be given freely to anyone (very bad idea), in such case the coins will be dumped as soon as possible, and hurt the project and the market.
One of the other solutions must be followed instead. I believe that the best option at the moment is to purchase the coins back at cost + giving a limited compensation to the seller returning the coins for his willingness to cooperate.

[ohad]

as things stand now, preventing loss is most important.
two cases are theoretically possible to be actually called losses: dilution of existing buyers, and buyers of the 500K not getting the new token.
under the primum non nocere principle (first do no harm), the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

[jibble]

as things stand now, preventing loss is most important.
two cases are theoretically possible to be actually called losses: dilution of existing buyers, and buyers of the 500K not getting the new token.
under the primum non nocere principle (first do no harm), the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

I don't know if i am alone in this thinking but those 500k coins that were dumped, i think 1 person got the majority .

that about 400k of coins , at currently market value which would now be 20 cents a piece , is like winning the lottery , its like 80,000 dollars

that to any project so young can be extremely damaging , especially if it advances beyond 1 dollars in the future or more , not only if the coin manage to reach a complete sell out of tokens at 42 million but out of the current amount that has been sold total , it makes up a good 10-15% at least share of all coins currently in circulation to investors .

Giving away 100,000 dollars to those who bought into the scammer dumping , then having to give away even more to compensate those investors that didn't get scammed seems a bit counter productive , giving even more free coins away.

Giving the coins in smaller bundles to 10 different projects would be a much more efficient advertisement for the coin but this would still just cause dumping and effecting the price and giving away potential and actual value .

if those who bought those super cheap coins where able to keep 5-10% of the coins they managed to buy + more coins to cover the actual BTC they spent buying those scam coins , at current market value.

this would be a reward for giving back coins , while also making sure any incurred loses they would suffer from returning them are covered , this would't cause a potentially large amount of coins out in the open held by a few and wouldn't effect the price anywhere near as much, while still saying thank you and helping out those affected by the dumping

[Foerster]

Those who bought the 500k coins should get back what they paid in BTC + 15% gain.
They get compensated a bit and nobody is hurt.

the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

Tau chain logical reasoning would not approve.
There is zero possibility that current holders will not turn out diluted by just raising the token supply a bit.
For no dilution to take place one would have to give current holders infinitely more tokens to make the 500k infinitesimally small in relation.

[ohad]

Those who bought the 500k coins should get back what they paid in BTC + 15% gain.
They get compensated a bit and nobody is hurt.

only one of them is known (though holds 90%)

the default is to fully credit the 500K holders, and give the current holders more tokens so they won't turn out diluted.

Tau chain logical reasoning would not approve.
There is zero possibility that current holders will not turn out diluted by just raising the token supply a bit.
For no dilution to take place one would have to give current holders infinitely more tokens to make the 500k infinitesimally small in relation.

it's not about raising the tokens supply, but adding all buyers up till today ~10% more tokens (automatically with the distribution of the new token), except the 500K.

[klosure]

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

[e1ghtSpace]

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

If Dor gives back the 90% he has and ohad buys it off him, ohad only has to destroy 50k coins from his stash.

[mr001]

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

This seems to be a good solution.

[NILIcoin]

Ok, here is a solution that I think everyone will find agreeable. As per presale terms, Ohad holds a 3% founder share which he may use as he sees fit. 3% of 42M is 1.26M which are or will anyway end up being part of the money supply. In addition, Ohad has expressed his determination to take full responsibility for the loss.

So here is what we can do: Ohad will take the 500k from the founder share and destroy it, reducing the founder share to 726k and the maximum future supply to 41.5M. From that point, the short term situation becomes exactly the same as if Ohad had decided to sell 500k of his holdings, as he is entitled to, and ended up doing a fat finger while doing so. In addition, the max supply has shrinked by 500k regardless of how many coins are effectively sold, which benefits every long term investor.

Now, you may be asking: won't the fact of taking from Ohad's stash risk reducing his amount of skin in the game and therefore affect his motivation for the project?Well in other circumstances it probably would, but remember that in that particular case the vast majority of the stolen money was picked up by Dor who is Ohad's friend. No good friend would pick your lost wallet and refuse to return it and Dor sure seems like a nice and honest guy, so I'm confident he'll push for Ohad to accept the funds back. Now as we have seen, Ohad is also conflicted by the idea that accepting the funds back would be unfair to Dor. Dor's intervention and willingness to return the funds pretty much saved the day, so Ohad owes him a bunch and will probably want to thank him for that. In the end, it's really something that only Ohad and Dor can solve together, and if I dare say, that's really none of our business.

This seems to be a good solution.

I think there is one more thing to consider here. Agoras coins are like shares in the future Agora platform. Now if I invest my dollars (or btc) to get the share, and some have invested their time working to create the value to  the share (as options in the regular scheme), having free-of-charge (gifted) shares floating in the market reduce the value of the initial share. A gift of an asset (token) that is traded in the market is always on the expense of all asset holders

I think that some sort of cooperation with  Dor's project can be interesting and useful and maybe profitable to both communities of coin holders but it have nothing to do with the stolen coin and these have to be taken out of the equation as of now. Whoever got the stolen coins can prove they came from that address and can be compensated by Ohad with btc or new Agora in the pre dump value .  I can see a good reasoning behind giving a little bonus for choosing new-Agora over btc  since for the project well being it is much better that the btc will stay in the hands of the developers of tau.

[Counterfiat]

The principle 'first do no harm' if applied in law gives a framework that provides for desirable long-term positive outcomes. For example the expression, 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' is not beneficial to those held captive, but removes motive for such heinous crimes into the future, saving many more lives and heartbreak. The way that common law has developed over time, is similar with respect to 'receiving stolen goods'. It takes away the ability to profit from such situations by giving the liability for the loss to the receiver of stolen goods. Therefore if we seek 'to do no harm', we seek to enact society's standards of preventing harm now and into the future.

If Ohad was to request all tokens 'received as stolen goods' be returned within seven days, there is legal precedent in the fairness of this action. If Ohad were then to say that though a receiver of stolen goods is to bear the loss in accordance with the laws of our land, however I am prepared to make a goodwill gesture by paying an amount equal to the cost in btc - This would be incredibly generous on Ohad's part. If further to this Ohad was to give a bounty, if returned in seven days, Foerster suggested 15%, then that would be way over and above what anyone could expect as a receiver of stolen goods.

To empower the receiver of stolen goods with a beneficiary interest, has been proven time and again over many centuries in the development of common law to be morally destructive.

Hence should the return of stolen property be done immediately without any further negotiation?

Ohad could choose to reserve some 500,000 tokens or more for potential legal costs, and generous bounties into the future. If these contingency coins are never used, then they are as good as destroyed in effect.

Thereby the way is now made clear to cancel all previous coins, redistributing new coins to only the deserving recipients, leaving out completely the stolen coins, except the contingency coins. This truly fits with the principle 'first do no harm' to the vast body of people involved in countless endeavours.



Disclaimer: these discussions might serve as preparatory thoughts for further discussions with a lawyer. I am in no way giving legal advice; now, beforehand or in the future with regards to any or all input I make. I suggest to seek professional legal advice and treat my comments as entertainment value only.

[e1ghtSpace]

Thereby the way is now made clear to cancel all previous coins, redistributing new coins to only the deserving recipients, leaving out completely the stolen coins, except the contingency coins. This truly fits with the principle 'first do no harm' to the vast body of people involved in countless endeavours.


Disclaimer: these discussions might serve as preparatory thoughts for further discussions with a lawyer. I am in no way giving legal advice; now, beforehand or in the future with regards to any or all input I make. I suggest to seek professional legal advice and treat my comments as entertainment value only.

I like this idea, but only because it makes sure that Agoras tokens will not be valued less after this incident.
If some are given away it decreases the value of the current holders' coins because some coins are worth "nothing" due to being freely given away.

[ohad]

assume we discredit the whole 21M rather only 20.5M (i.e. not sending new tokens also to the 500K holders).
you might claim that this is more justifiable (yet arguable).
but is it good from the *project's* point of view?
what is the project's best interest?

in addition, the 3% premine aren't meant to be mine personally. it is supposed to support the project for the long term (together with the presale funds).

last question: if the 500K were sold in 1% less than the market price (not 90% or so), would still reverting trades involving stolen goods was so important?

[ohad]

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

[Counterfiat]

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

That is a great outcome.

Kudos to Dor!