Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network

[HunterMinerCrafter]

I read now several times about 'Autonomic' and understood this is some sort of other project or fork. But a simple search brings always up Tau. Does this other project exist?

Autonomic is (literally) all of the developers who worked on "original tau" except Ohad.

We started a new project "Autonomous Nomic Overlay Network" which intends to carry out the "original tau" plan.

The project exists primarily in #AutoNomic on freenode.

[1715460493]

1715460493

[1715460493]

1715460493

[1715460493]

1715460493

[1715460493]

1715460493

[1715460493]

1715460493

[1715460493]

1715460493

[LiskEnterprise]

SO is it correct you are applying something like Stephen Wolfram... New kind of science to find the basic primitives so to then allow self organizing?

The most basic logic functional programming language to evolve through iterations?

Then maybe genisis block should run onto a Fibonacci tree to have multiple blockchains branching from the first so decisions are not restrictive??

Thanks for the reply as i understand it at the basic you are creating a logic non turing complete programming language that is general purpose.

How does it relate in logic to Shen, http://shenlanguage.org/

thanks

indeed a lot of similarities at the language level (as well as differences). however we take another step forward towards a logical discussion platform, and from there a discussion about the platform itself (self-amendment). in quite accurate and broad summary: tau is a large-scale discussion about tau. with all we see as required to make it happen.

[LiskEnterprise]

WOW everything gets a CLASSIC these days...

BTC next?


DO you have a summary or whitepaper?

SO is it correct you are applying something like Stephen Wolfram... New kind of science to find the basic primitives so to then allow self organizing?

The most basic logic functional programming language to evolve through iterations?

Then maybe genisis block should run onto a Fibonacci tree to have multiple blockchains branching from the first so decisions are not restrictive??

Thanks for the reply as i understand it at the basic you are creating a logic non turing complete programming language that is general purpose.

How does it relate in logic to Shen, http://shenlanguage.org/

thanks

indeed a lot of similarities at the language level (as well as differences). however we take another step forward towards a logical discussion platform, and from there a discussion about the platform itself (self-amendment). in quite accurate and broad summary: tau is a large-scale discussion about tau. with all we see as required to make it happen.

[GTTIGER]

I read now several times about 'Autonomic' and understood this is some sort of other project or fork. But a simple search brings always up Tau. Does this other project exist?

Autonomic is (literally) all of the developers who worked on "original tau" except Ohad.

We started a new project "Autonomous Nomic Overlay Network" which intends to carry out the "original tau" plan.

The project exists primarily in #AutoNomic on freenode.

Wow, that's scary. I didn't know devs left... especially an exceptional dev such as yourself.

[mightyMight]

I read now several times about 'Autonomic' and understood this is some sort of other project or fork. But a simple search brings always up Tau. Does this other project exist?

Autonomic is (literally) all of the developers who worked on "original tau" except Ohad.

We started a new project "Autonomous Nomic Overlay Network" which intends to carry out the "original tau" plan.

The project exists primarily in #AutoNomic on freenode.

Wow, that's scary. I didn't know devs left... especially an exceptional dev such as yourself.

Why scary?  HMC et al. leaving is not an issue.  It's best for teams to split than have daily infighting.  It will all come down to the final products anyway.  If AutoNomic ends up being a better implementation, so be it.  But being scared though?!  If it weren't for Ohad,...

I agree.

Also if HMC and rest did split up, why is it those discussions are brought up here probably the x time? Would it not make more sense to Announce its own project, write the whitepaper and go on with developement? I mean leaving the team means leaving the team. And if AutoNomic is working faster and is good also cool. But why spending hours here to try to explain how wrong Ohad is. Is there still discussion ongoing or is everyone just repeating himself?

Last but not least, just because your old friends say your wrong, does not mean you are.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

Also if HMC and rest did split up, why is it those discussions are brought up here probably the x time?

You asked.

Would it not make more sense to Announce its own project, write the whitepaper and go on with developement?

We have been going on with development for a year.  We decided it did not make sense to make a redundant announcement and white-paper considering we make no change to original plans.

I mean leaving the team means leaving the team. And if AutoNomic is working faster and is good also cool. But why spending hours here to try to explain how wrong Ohad is. Is there still discussion ongoing or is everyone just repeating himself?

Who's explaining how wrong Ohad is?  Are you referring to the quoted posts from Sept/Oct?

Apparently, no-one is still discussing.  Stoop tried just today to get a "math focused" discussion going between the three of us.  I asked Ohad for his belief wrt a particularly relevant logical fact about collapse of orders, a yes/no question.  He gave me both answers, then the silent treatment, more or less.  I'm not sure how we can hope to discuss with someone who can not even consistently tell their position.

Last but not least, just because your old friends say your wrong, does not mean you are.

No, but when the logic does one should at least take pause.

[ohad]

hours before hmc jumped here yesterday, i explained to him very well that im not interested in any further discussion with him. and i wont drag myself. even though he tries very hard.
and the reason, as i explained to him, is as he admitted, that he doesnt even try to be a little bit of a gentleman.
i then told him i'll back to discussion when being gentleman is part of the rules. specifically his non-gentleman rule "our interaction should have only one form: i speak, i do not provide proofs or sources, and your (mine) role, is to prove that i'm *right*".
i wish it was a joke.
but i repeated it yesterday more than dozen of times in order to make sure he's serious on this.

so im not going into any discussions with an explicit declaration of no intention of basic seriousness, or even animal-level respect.
and i didnt even mentoin the lies, frauds, mistakes, trollings, math&cs stupidity and emptiness (it's all a fraudlent buzzword show!!), i can forget them all, given someone wants to behave at least little bit normally. no matter math/art/fun/biz.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

hours before hmc jumped here yesterday, i explained to him very well that im not interested in any further discussion with him. and i wont drag myself. even though he tries very hard.
and the reason, as i explained to him, is as he admitted, that he doesnt even try to be a little bit of a gentleman.
i then told him i'll back to discussion when being gentleman is part of the rules. specifically his non-gentleman rule "our interaction should have only one form: i speak, i do not provide proofs or sources, and your (mine) role, is to prove that i'm *right*".
i wish it was a joke.
but i repeated it yesterday more than dozen of times in order to make sure he's serious on this.

so im not going into any discussions with an explicit declaration of no intention of basic seriousness, or even animal-level respect.
and i didnt even mentoin the lies, frauds, mistakes, trollings, math&cs stupidity and emptiness (it's all a fraudlent buzzword show!!), i can forget them all, given someone wants to behave at least little bit normally. no matter math/art/fun/biz.

I was never aware of any expectation of being a gentleman.  Our agreement was simple, I would explain the design and do my best to answer any questions, and Ohad would implement - prove the concept.  I describe, Ohad programs.

This was the explicit agreement we made at the start.  I'm a little baffled as to why it was a suitable agreement for years, but is now today suddenly "non-gentleman."

All I really want to know now is if you agree that there are second/third/higher order theories which can not possibly collapse to be consistently proven in monadic second order?

If you say "yes" and agree that there are such statements then we have some common ground to perhaps proceed with.
If you say "no" (as your other comments have implied) then your perspective differs from that of the past ~60 years of philosophy, and I'd surely like to understand how/why.

If you give me both answers and then refuse to say another word in clarification, what am I to make of your behavior?  Inconsistent?  "Non-Gentleman"ly?

Anyway, all I was doing was answering some questions about mltt and autonomic.  I didn't come here to revisit your nonsense yet again.

[mightyMight]

Also if HMC and rest did split up, why is it those discussions are brought up here probably the x time?

We have been going on with development for a year.  We decided it did not make sense to make a redundant announcement and white-paper considering we make no change to original plans.

I see. Well, any sourcecode, website available?

[HunterMinerCrafter]

I see. Well, any sourcecode, website available?

Source is still in the form of experiments scattered between our github repos, pastebins/gists, etc.

We don't really spend time on things like website, marketing, "PR" but focus only on our work to finish the design and implement.  (We aren't selling anything so we don't market anything...)  We do have a fledgling wiki which has some overview information, and of course our public irc log.

However, the best way to learn about our project is to just come talk to us about it and ask questions.  We will do everything that we can to try to explain it!

[Xaltotun]

I wouldn't mind  following your work HMC. Do you have a thread of your own to follow? No offense,  I come here to read up on Tau.

[John_Paul]

no, and quite the contrary. the plan is to have majority (or nearly majority) of the coins to be sold after tau is ready and before agoras is ready (which is the moment when unsold coins will be burnt). we'll try to adjust it to happen by price raises (i.e. to avoid selling nearly majority of the coins beforehand)

I suggest that you keep 15% to 20% of coins for the team to fund the future development of Agaros. Keeping a certain amount of coins for the future development has pretty much become a standard practice in this cryptocurrency industry.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

I wouldn't mind  following your work HMC. Do you have a thread of your own to follow? No offense,  I come here to read up on Tau.

The best ways to keep up on the project, at this time, would probably be to follow the irc log and maybe keep an eye on the wiki.  Join #AutoNomic on freenode and check out the links in the topic for more info.

Also, just come talk to us!

Seriously, we answer questions... for free... all day.  We even delight in doing so.  All anyone needs to do is come to us and ask them.  We have nothing to keep secret, nothing to sell, no strings to attach, and we want as many people as is possible to understand (and perhaps even participate in) our direction.

This may seem like unusual behavior in this contemporary space of crypto projects, but it is how we've always felt that it was best to choose to operate.

[dmitryshech]

"our interaction should have only one form: i speak, i do not provide proofs or sources, and your (mine) role, is to prove that i'm *right*".

Hmm... interesting approach   worth opening thread of your own

Seriously speaking, it would be nice to see the progress on both parts of a splitted project. Only final product can prove who was right

Peace & Love.

[rocanonz]

"our interaction should have only one form: i speak, i do not provide proofs or sources, and your (mine) role, is to prove that i'm *right*".

Hmm... interesting approach   worth opening thread of your own

Seriously speaking, it would be nice to see the progress on both parts of a splitted project. Only final product can prove who was right

Peace & Love.

Thank you Master HMC for opening our Nomic eyes but we, your slaves, have decided to disobey your supreme command and build the real Tau who speaks freedom, not for your self-satisfying spiritual egoism, but for a better world.
So be it.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

Thank you Master HMC for opening our Nomic eyes but we, your slaves, have decided to disobey your supreme command and build the real Tau who speaks freedom, not for your self-satisfying spiritual egoism, but for a better world.
So be it.

(Ok, I'll bite...)

I'm very curious: what "command" do you believe I've given... and to whom, exactly?

[nob0dy]

whats freedom? everyone is free as it gets in his mind.

epic scenario. another proof that we cant fight the powers were made of.

my 2 cents: egoism wins.

[mightyMight]

"our interaction should have only one form: i speak, i do not provide proofs or sources, and your (mine) role, is to prove that i'm *right*".

Seriously speaking, it would be nice to see the progress on both parts of a splitted project. Only final product can prove who was right

Agreed.

On a second thought. Both parties can be right. Depends on the implementation and used logic.

[NILIcoin]

Thank you Master HMC for opening our Nomic eyes but we, your slaves, have decided to disobey your supreme command and build the real Tau who speaks freedom, not for your self-satisfying spiritual egoism, but for a better world.
So be it.

(Ok, I'll bite...)

I'm very curious: what "command" do you believe I've given... and to whom, exactly?

Wow... this project and even the thread are just getting to the heart of it all. The heart of that which we as a spices have to resolve.We are social creature living in large communities like ants and bees yet we each maintain a sense of complete and separate entity, an autonomous being. The main contradiction here is that if each and one of us is motivated to do only the best to humanity as a whole, but each of us is a different entity we would all end up fighting each other. That is since in terms of information theory the information that Alice have will always be greater than that of bob regarding her experiences and vice versa. thus the more individuals we interact with the greater that gap of information between each individual in the group to the rest of them becomes. "culture" is one way to overcome that, separation of powers is the other way. The personal level that we see this mathematical and programming project turns in to, only emphasis the above even further when HMC holding the later one and Ohad the first one. however in fact each approach in order to work need the other to balance it out.

So let me review now how Satoshi resolved that (if he did at all). Satoshi trick was to apply the separation of power for the agreement using incentive architecture to compensate for the luck of a "culture" as a motivation then use the state of consensus as the culture on which to built the next block. that culture is enforced by all nodes who wish to take part in the "game" The consensus thus represent the social unity (culture) while the transaction verification is done by a separation of power.

Separation of power is an agreement all sides comply with, and so is culture. assuming that each individual is free to join or leave at any given moment by exercising free will, however.....no individual should have power over the other once enter the scheme. and that is where Satoshi failed. Lately that issue is named governing, and it threatens the entire bitcoin community of users. Or is it not?

A fork means that all information and all states are at agreement up to the point of forking thus at the moment of fork each  individual can make a choice without losing anything. However this is not true since while consenting to the consensus some individuals (or groups with in) lost power gained by others..

In short the governing issue is not governing but rather information. in order to keep the separation of power, information have to stay at the hand of the individual entity. each entity have to have its own information, have to be one unique none cloned identity which only that individual can reveal. But.... that a verifier can verified .

The problem that both Ohad and HMC need to resolve together is how to built that verifier. If they each fork we will not get it. if they cant work together it means that they cant built it together and if they cant built it together even if working separately  it can not be built.

So lets look at the verifier problem now. We need to trust the verifier and that verifier thus can not be a third party that can make gains in the game, unless it is the game itself. The trick is the game. I am me only in that game. on each game I will be a new me. each fork will restart all gamers as new entities thus they all will lose. its a game that if you enter you gain and if you leave you lose but whatever you gain or lose dont change the sum for the others only for the total of the game.

let me tokenize that, first as value of money, then we will be able to move on to see how we transform the token to information other then money.
lets assume every player get a token once enter the game and all other players get a fraction of a cloned token for each new player (equal to the new player added value). thus for each new player the system gains two  tokens one for the new player and one to share between old players. Now these tokens have a unique quality. they can never be spend as a whole. meaning that the program can identify each fragment as part of that one. now lets assume that the token given to the new player is not divisible. thus the only thing that a new player can do is sent his token and by that "delete his account" and at the moment his account is deleted so are all the fragments of the cloned token. this way each individual carry the real power of his original membership even if never accumulated any more tokens.

my apology for making this too short of an explanation and jump now into exchanging the value token with information. My token is my identity in terms of information. all players shares the information but if use it together will loose it. thus are insenevise to avoid "knowing" all about who I am. I am still free to do as a wish but as a new player in a new game. however the players in this game have the incentive to keep me in the game since they lose their ability to participate without having my and each other fragments of tokens. and They can not eliminate me without coordination between them all to losing something themselves.

That tokenized rule of information is all that matters. All other rules can be reach as a consensus of majority while "identity" is the only rule that have to be 100% agreed on either by the individual or by the entire group.  

[Islapdonkey]

Sometime its best to negate the ego to encourage success. Seem like you lads might actually have something great here. A cohesive force will always outpace.