A Tauchain discussion can scale and when we say discussion we have to think of all that could mean. But I also want to remind people that a Tauchain discussion is out of band and that Tauchain while it can scale discussion, detect contradiction, maintain the formal aspect, it still is vulnerable to false information decoy discussions, propaganda, because facts have to be true and how do we establish what is TRUE and what is FALSE?
Tauchain will not determine TRUE from FALSE. We have to determine that. Tauchain can help us, but ultimately the users have to be dedicated to the TRUTH even if it breaks with their beliefs. The users have to be willing to change their beliefs when they discover TRUTH. This is going to be a challenge because people are invested more in their belief than in their search for the truth in many cases.
Politics involve ideology, religion, and beliefs based not on facts, or on evidence, but feelings, propaganda, even fake science articles. There has to be a means of determining which discussions on Tauchain are authentic. How would we solve this?
Politics involve ideology, religion, and beliefs based not on facts, or on evidence, but feelings, propaganda, even fake science articles. There has to be a means of determining which discussions on Tauchain are authentic. How would we solve this?
Excellent question, as that's a critical point to consider.
What first came to mind: a solid identity/reputation system/component would be a start, such that input could be confirmed to be coming from real people and not just fake accounts trying to manipulate consensus. Of course, that still doesn't touch the issue of valid users' input being tainted unconsciously with misinformation, cognitive bias, etc.
What came to mind second: there might not be a definitive answer to that question at this point.
I feel that we'd have to have a working model of an actual platform to determine the exact dynamics it utilizes first, before being able to custom-tailor answers to specific communities. Some communities and discussions might be more abstract & philosophical, versus others of a more scientific nature where there are concrete facts which can be proven/disproven. I'd envision there needing to be customized parameters for different communities / types of discussions with different rulesets for validating factual evidence or determining what is undeniably subjective.
Part of my brain would love to dive in deeper to the challenge of formulating answers, though that might be getting ahead of ourselves without some tangible case studies and a clear idea of what a Tau-based platform would function like. Great to keep that concern on the radar for when the time comes, though...
I think the problem is deep. First if the people provide the discussions under their real name then how would you distinguish signalling from authentic discussion? If a group of people would be more socially desirable to a specific demographic to have one discussion over another discussion then will this influence the discussion the group of people have?
If the group of people values how they are perceived by that specific demographic more than they are aligned to the truth or to being authentic then would this influence the discussion? Kind of like if all votes are public and most people in society have a boss, what do you think the boss could say to get his people to vote in the way he thinks is right?
The only way I see around the problem is to have pseudo anonymity. Reputation can exist for pseudo anon organizations which can have discussions but which cannot be coerced into ignoring the truth in favor of the propaganda. Otherwise with the right kind of pressure almost any individual can be coerced to say almost anything which would invalidate discussion.
Please give this more thought and consider a followup post.
Pseudo anonymity could certainly be an excellent feature - the identity & reputation component active to verify users are qualified to participate in discussions on the back-end, though it being up to them whether they choose to reveal their actual identities or not on the front-end...
One important aspect of TAU is that it doesn't get stuck at a local maxima, but can re-evaluate the whole set of agreements. It isn't limited to incremental changes like current systems, but can evaluate all possible outcomes based on given boundaries and preferences. Here's from Ohad's post
An approach for rule-changing that was considered on the old Tau is Nomic's approach. To explain Nomic's approach and the new Tau's approach we'll use an example. Consider two lawyers each representing two sides of some deal, trying to converge into a contract such that both lawyers agree on. One way would be the following. First lawyer suggests a clause in the contract, and the second lawyer may agree or not. If agreed, then the clause is appended, otherwise it isn't. Then it's the second lawyer's turn to propose a clause and so on. This would be the Nomic way. The equivalent for Tau is to apply successive code patches with time. By that we pose an asymmetry between opinions that came first. There's a lot to say about this asymmetry and how Tau manages to avoid it almost completely, but for now, consider the case where a newly proposed clause contradicts an old clause. If we don't want to give priority to what came first, they will then have to amend the new or old clause or even more clauses, and not by default delete the old clause.
Another way would be that on every turn, each lawyer submits a whole contract draft, and the other lawyer may either accept it or propose a different draft. Requiring each draft to be logically consistent, we will never have to deal with contradictions of past vs future. It eliminates completely the need to look back. But it still cannot scale. What if we had a million lawyers, will they read a million drafts?
Over Tau we can take all those million contract drafts, which correspond to proposals of Tau's next full code, and in a quite straight-forward way (thanks to the logical formalism of the documents) calculate the precise core that everyone agree on, and list the points to be resolved. We don't need to vote, we do it just as in small groups in real life, we just speak, and the opinions map arise from the conversation to any intelligent listener.
Surprisingly I had done a small bit of research about what was going on in France so I am happy to say I knew it was more than just crazy people running around in the street. This is a great post. I have been telling colleagues for a while(okay so the past year) that whether you "believe" in crypto currencies or not and though they may come and go, blockchain isn't going anywhere. You shared some awesome thoughts here and the vision for Tauchain seems really impressive.
A Tauchain discussion can scale and when we say discussion we have to think of all that could mean. But I also want to remind people that a Tauchain discussion is out of band and that Tauchain while it can scale discussion, detect contradiction, maintain the formal aspect, it still is vulnerable to false information decoy discussions, propaganda, because facts have to be true and how do we establish what is TRUE and what is FALSE?
Tauchain will not determine TRUE from FALSE. We have to determine that. Tauchain can help us, but ultimately the users have to be dedicated to the TRUTH even if it breaks with their beliefs. The users have to be willing to change their beliefs when they discover TRUTH. This is going to be a challenge because people are invested more in their belief than in their search for the truth in many cases.
Politics involve ideology, religion, and beliefs based not on facts, or on evidence, but feelings, propaganda, even fake science articles. There has to be a means of determining which discussions on Tauchain are authentic. How would we solve this?
Excellent question, as that's a critical point to consider.
What first came to mind: a solid identity/reputation system/component would be a start, such that input could be confirmed to be coming from real people and not just fake accounts trying to manipulate consensus. Of course, that still doesn't touch the issue of valid users' input being tainted unconsciously with misinformation, cognitive bias, etc.
What came to mind second: there might not be a definitive answer to that question at this point.
I feel that we'd have to have a working model of an actual platform to determine the exact dynamics it utilizes first, before being able to custom-tailor answers to specific communities. Some communities and discussions might be more abstract & philosophical, versus others of a more scientific nature where there are concrete facts which can be proven/disproven. I'd envision there needing to be customized parameters for different communities / types of discussions with different rulesets for validating factual evidence or determining what is undeniably subjective.
Part of my brain would love to dive in deeper to the challenge of formulating answers, though that might be getting ahead of ourselves without some tangible case studies and a clear idea of what a Tau-based platform would function like. Great to keep that concern on the radar for when the time comes, though...
I think the problem is deep. First if the people provide the discussions under their real name then how would you distinguish signalling from authentic discussion? If a group of people would be more socially desirable to a specific demographic to have one discussion over another discussion then will this influence the discussion the group of people have?
If the group of people values how they are perceived by that specific demographic more than they are aligned to the truth or to being authentic then would this influence the discussion? Kind of like if all votes are public and most people in society have a boss, what do you think the boss could say to get his people to vote in the way he thinks is right?
The only way I see around the problem is to have pseudo anonymity. Reputation can exist for pseudo anon organizations which can have discussions but which cannot be coerced into ignoring the truth in favor of the propaganda. Otherwise with the right kind of pressure almost any individual can be coerced to say almost anything which would invalidate discussion.
Please give this more thought and consider a followup post.
Pseudo anonymity could certainly be an excellent feature - the identity & reputation component active to verify users are qualified to participate in discussions on the back-end, though it being up to them whether they choose to reveal their actual identities or not on the front-end...
One important aspect of TAU is that it doesn't get stuck at a local maxima, but can re-evaluate the whole set of agreements. It isn't limited to incremental changes like current systems, but can evaluate all possible outcomes based on given boundaries and preferences. Here's from Ohad's post
Doesn’t look like you post too often, but you earned a new follower, nonetheless... :-)
Loved you article, love your project. I have been following it for a while now. Added you and Dana to my curation trail. =]
Cool.
🙏💓
Surprisingly I had done a small bit of research about what was going on in France so I am happy to say I knew it was more than just crazy people running around in the street. This is a great post. I have been telling colleagues for a while(okay so the past year) that whether you "believe" in crypto currencies or not and though they may come and go, blockchain isn't going anywhere. You shared some awesome thoughts here and the vision for Tauchain seems really impressive.
I am proud of the existence of the eiffel tower in Paris, because this is a form of history as the country's own proud identity
How will you fairly dispatch Tauchain coin ?
https://steemit.com/asa/@chrisaiki/how-to-fairly-dispatch-a-new-crypto
Tauchain itself does not have a coin.
AGORAS - the primary token used in its first ecosystem - is not a giveaway model.