Quote from: ryvirath on February 15, 2017, 06:45:51 AM

Quote from: ohad on February 14, 2017, 10:17:19 AM

Quote from: dmitryshech on February 13, 2017, 08:39:03 PM

Quote from: ohad on February 10, 2017, 07:44:42 AM

Quote from: dmitryshech on February 10, 2017, 01:35:31 AM

The "tau" or "root" team will define the rules of changing the rules?

will define the code of the platform itself.
changing the rules is a mechanism to occur in all teams over tau.

Quote from: ohad on February 10, 2017, 07:44:42 AM

Quote from: dmitryshech on February 10, 2017, 01:35:31 AM

The very first of those rules will be defined from alpha?

on our new design, all rules can be changed whatsoever in case of consensus, no matter whether they contradict an old rule or not. this is a deeper level of self-amendment comparing to the initial design. you can even replace the whole tau's code, the logic, everything.

If the "tau" or "root" team will define the code of the platform itself, then I did't get if that mechanism of changing the rules occurs in all teams except "root"? Changes in the rules of particular team by consensus there some how influence the "root"- the whole platform?
Can you provide some very simple use case example? Maybe even with comparison of same use case in Etherium, if it even can be compared.

not sure i understood (maybe has to do with the rule-by-rule or contract-draft-by-draft as in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=950309.msg17799590#msg17799590 recalling that replacing the whole contract draft is like replacing the whole client's code so it can be totally different),
every team can change their own rules, or equivalently their own [pre-]theory, and if the team happens to be designing code, then they can agree that the spec is ready and then synthesize code from the spec and run it. but they won't be able to change the code of the platform (tau) itself. for that, a specific team (root/tau) will be created.
the root team will have a huge influence on the platform, and theoretically they can destroy all other teams and the whole thing. if something is amendable, then it can change to something completely different.
to bootstrap final tau's process, we will have a team over the alpha that supports programs, and over it we will construct a self-amending decentralized program (tau), after we all take into considerations the security of the system. so the final construct will not begin empty as planned from the beginning, but on the other hand, it won't begin arbitrary, but begin with rules under consensus derived over previous alphas.
i don't think it's comparable to eth. eth is by no means self-defining or self-amending.

Maybe similar to Dfinity. It's Ethereum plus a new type of consensus mechanism plus the blockchain nervous system. The BNS is basically a super user AI (with op codes that can alter any parameters) coordinated by a liquid democracy/futarchy. I'm pretty excited about it. Reminded me a little of Tau.

Yes, it's understood that the self-defining and self-amending are the main thing here. But I refer to eth just in purpose of better understanding from my non tech beginner point of view. I am trying to visualize the tau without getting too much into how it technically happens. Your example with facebook was very helpful for visualizing but facebook is also not self-defining and self-amending.

If you want the largest possible audience to actually read the paper it has to draw the right picture in target audence minds. I don't even understand in full how exactly etherium works but I for sure understand it better than tau for now, I understand the advantages of etherium and smart contracts and what it can bring to the world. After I got familiar with Tauchain I realized that there is a limitations in etherium, and tau is trying to brake those limitations. I am sure I am not alone at that level of understanding, the comment of ryvirath above proofs that.

Is it right to say that the "self-amending decentralized program (tau)" is equivalent of eth's virtual machine? Teams over tau can create smart contracts collaboratively in a very innovative way, using a new consensus mechanism (contract-draft-by-draft) that prevents paradoxes and contradictions. What happens next? How and where self-amending happens? How blockchain involved here? What is the structure?

Maybe you're right and eth it's not the right example, then what could be the right one? Nomic, the process of theory formation and so on it's very interesting but something is missing here, it should be warped in something that makes it sound simple. I am just trying to be helpful here and represent some fraction (maybe even significant one) of the target audience that going to read that paper.