Behest for Tauchain

in blockchain •  11 months ago

 Guys, after a few articles [1], [2], [3]. [4] - I think I owe you to present a little bit myself and [5], [6]. 

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 [7]. In couple of European jurisdictions. is a ... firm. In the sense of :: firm (n.) [8], 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 is a tool. My tool, which I continuously develop to deliver answers [9] upon behests [6] for compliance to various crypto endeavors. 

Metaphorically, the tool dev target is: if a law firm is a CPU [10], to be crypto legal services ASIC [11]. 

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 is a studio [12], 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 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 [13] we to fly ... not like the birds do. 

I must herewith admit that closest to my heart are two technological projects.: Tau [14] and ET3 [15]. 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 [16] 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 [2], 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 and mine best selfish interest. Which is: a world of unimaginable freedom and wealth for all. in that sense is ''for Tauchain'' for the perspective the Tau to become ''for Behest''. Realization of my lifetime Legum [17] project. 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 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 [18] 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 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 [19] 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 biz philosophy to come. 

Stay tuned. 


18qSKUUTAGw1uL53simrSiZ6pJpfxKACvj for research support. Thanks. 

Copyright © 2018 Georgi Karov. All rights reserved.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Thanks. Not occasionally Ohad says that soon he'll be the 'least lonely' dev in the world. This is narrowly in his trade or job. Imagine if everybody in his/her sphere of interest and work gets boosted by all 'people who ask the same questions'. Mutually. Due to bad communication and collaboration up to now, massive effort gets wasted, or receives insufficient backing or simply gets buried into the archives to be found long after it's been rediscovered and mainstreamed. Problematics comprising extremely fertile array of fields ... Same I see the situation in Law - in all its facets.


how about Artificial Intelligence? Ohad's modus kinda spells that although he be using human submissions to make final decisions. But isnt that related to AI on any level at all?


Well, it is but ... if only we had solid definition of what 'artificial intelligence' is [1] AI nowadays is almost synonymous with ML/NNs. Which is probabilistic / statistical approach. Tau isn't. It is logic. [2] As Ohad mentioned few times, forgot who was the original author, ''AI is what machines can not do yet'', which is the best definition I've ever heard. :) [3] Artificial? WE, humans are all AIs, produced by society. Cf.: feral children. [4] As described Tau definitely automates certain functions which are human-hard... [5] In my understanding Tau is much wider scope than creation of computer which to mimic human on satisfactory level - much more than cybernetic homunculus. :) See Ref.[3] to this post. etc. etc.

Tauchain will surely have mass adoption in the future. Great!


I expect the adoption directions to be completely ... unexpected :P People are extremely good in finding totally unforeseeable applications of a thing once its here.

What are your thoughts on intellectual property laws @karov?


Very good question, thanks, Kevin. I'm absolutely PRO. Pro-ownership. To record inventions and innovations, to assign them to ... names, those 'names' to be rewarded, to unleash market = to boost prosperity. Up until very recently we didn't have any other means but centralized ledgers, centralized fiat currency monetization, double-entry book-keeping recording of emergence and non-self-enforcing rule-set for protection of ownership and transactions which all require trust i.e. force ot coercion - immensely more costly than any PoW. Since 2008 we have already tripple-entry accountancy and self-enforcing technology. I expect that a system for recording and trading all kinds of intellectual property, even such which we deem as such which the present day clumsy and expensive and slow, IP legal system can't handle -- based on forms of cryptographic tokenization, where to copy would mean automatically a sale / reward event / ... shall emerge an prosper. And will boost the overal economy because the share of knowledge in products grows exponentially ... I also expect such a system to be paradoxically PATENTABLE :) :) :) - a 'patent to end all patents'' :) In fact I have in mind pretty elaborated idea about such, but can't reveal it yet because it is proprietary... Imagine a system where you just throw all what comes to your mind, without any requirement for form, aside from being machine understandable, the system extracts the essence, timestamps and account assigns it, is accessible only from within and rewards every look on it ... Sounds very Tauful, ah?


My thoughts are still cloudy on the matter, but much of it stems from how things used to work. Maybe it'll change in the future when playing field is more levelled. Wrote this two years ago,, looking forward to update it as I gain better understanding :D

(I'm not a legal expert, more or less just talking out of my hind lol)


Wonderful article! Thanks. Your points are valid, and I think I have some of the answers. I have several articles to post on scarcity and Clusivity in general, and I also thought over procedural generation, SAT methods... I'll try here to mark few things in prior.: [1] the existing IP system is an attempt to turn the abundant into scarce. Abundance is function of ease to copy. Easy copy = lots in numbers = higher supply = lower price. Copyright by fiat ( 'to be', i.e. coercive) methods restricts the supply in an attempt to defend the dev cost in IP sense. Its effectively equivalent to excise duty or war-on-drugs to keep copycost high and to limit the supply and mainstreamability. It does it in clumsy, expensive and inefficient way but that's all we have now. All we have now is: law, trust which is == (literally equivalent to) force, and double-entry hierarchy of accounting. Yes, BOTH generation of IP and protection of IP (even of the fuzzy 'knowhow' i.e. trade secrets ) can be automated. [2] Generation by brute force walking over the whole phase or combinatorial space has been discussed many times. On my humble opinion it is as expensive as randomness. [3] EVEN if the Ledger upload is fee-less computation, internet etc. do cost. [4] Protection by cryptographic scarcitification - especially by use of zero-knowledge tech is ... unavoidable. Imagine IP objects as unique non-fungible 'cryptokittens' like digital objects which protocol excludes permissionless copying. Like imagine, only your 3D printer can be addressee of download and can print out only as much copies as stated into the tag of the instruction script package. Cause THIS is theonly method we know up to now to scarcitify and iniquify diesmbodied information. [4] The economic and moral dimension - you can still upload in the IP Ledger a thing without to scarcitify it. Kinda Open source. [5] The other important moment is that such a system is fit even under the present day IP legal system. Cf. 'Prior art'. [6] And the other other important moment in this line of thought is the non-monopolizability in digital way. I.e. there must be something which keeps the IP Ledger to be unique in order to prevent same structural objects to be uploaded independently on diff. ledgers. [7] Last but not least ... as you said how to distingwish? My answer is morphism, resemblances. If you imperfectly copy a thing, or create original inspired remake, how much it resembles/differs from the original entry is a measurable thing. Hence we end up with kinda reward-split or co-ownership multi-sig ( rather the former ) arrangement. ALSO the IP Ledger system could be timed - i.e. the items inside to fee-fade (become cheaper) or fee-cut (become free) with time. [8] Such a computation is stupid to be shoveled into the very blockchain so most probably the blockchain will be just clockchain and the IP Ledger would be layer on top of it. Layered structuring of networks seems to be natural unavoidability wrt scaling. Like TCP/IP - the lawyering was the breakthrough to give us Internet, and like with BTC/Omni or BTC/LN ... ... Sorry for the long answer but ... you see each sentence of this reply is at least couple of articles to post :) Except writing a voluminous book which gets outdated in the writing, a puzzle pieces issued serially which puzzle pieces could be upgraded / topics readdressed one by one / ...


One other very special observation. IP Law does not protect the Big Corp. Exactly the opposite. I suspect that due to their self-blinding hierarchic nature the Big Corp are quite innovation impotent no matter how much manpower and cashpower they throw. The riches of the 4 horses of the Infocalypse are still coming mostly from the groundbreaking innovations they did in daddy's garages and without dev money. They made money with knowledge. BUT, they failed and fail to make knowledge with money. They made money outta knowledge only because these brain-made things were protectable vs the Big Corps of the day. Not to steal and use it but to destroy it. And not deliberately but from hierarchic blindness and impotence :)

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.

Ballsy move.

BTW, you are the third great enthusiast of Tauchain i have met on Steem. First Traf, then Kevin. Had a wonderful time chatting with you on danaedwards' thread about Bitcoin and Ethereum. Totally felt the bustling fountain of your deep knowledge, more than the empty hunger-inspired speculations littered all over this shit show of a platform.

quietly tags along for some knawledge.


Ballsy but unavoidable - otherwise Law will keep on being comic like most of economics which slept over 190 years and missed out the 2nd law of thermodynamics :). Traf and Kevin and Dana, so I'm in good company. Thank you for the compliment - I'd wish to knew more.