Blog‎ > ‎

Decentralized Democracy and the Role of the First Users

posted Aug 31, 2015, 11:22 PM by Ohad Asor   [ updated Jul 12, 2016, 1:02 PM ]
Recently we mentioned several times the logical and technological properties of tau, and now maybe it is time to take a step back and look at the broader picture. We mentioned that tau's programming language is actually rules and logic. We meet rules and logic in many other aspects of life: a relatively small example is that the pure logic structure in solutions to existing problems can be used automatically to cope with unsolved problems, even in an entirely non-related field, like some Chemical structure being isomorphic to some existing computer program.

This is still a certain use case and is aside the main point, and the main point is decentralized democracy.

Tau is able to formalize laws, query their consequences, and verify their consistency. It is able to do so in a fully decentralized mode. Tau cannot directly interact with the laws of reality, but it defines its own rules. The network is self-definable and self-amendable. The software client is a compiler that downloads source code from the blockchain and executes that code. The code may (and should occasionally) vary from block to block. Essentially, the most important part of the client's code is the conditions for accepting the next block.

The rules, protocol, and specific behavior of the network are of course a main factor in the evolution of the network. But specifying them is not our first task upon genesis. Our first task is to specify how rules can be changed, somehow disregarding what those rules actually are.

Tau's logic and infrastructure allow separation of Contexts. By Context we mean a set of rules that applies only to participants that actively wish to subscribe to that context. The terminology comes from the RDF world: tau's language is formed by quadruples of subject-verb-object-context, so the fact or rule described in "subject-verb-object" applies only at the given context. Nevertheless, code reuse across contexts is possible, and is commonly denoted as context1:subject context2:predicate etc. Contexts can also be pegged on the root chain as sidechains can be pegged on Bitcoin's chain.

On every context, one may have any kind of custom rules. So the root chain should not intervene on what happens in custom contexts, but define only the rules vital for its own existence. Tau can be bootstrapped with simple arbitrary rules, even roster of first participants, or centralized insertion of code by us. Whatever those rules will be, they are temporary, and our first task is to define how and when rules can be changed at all. Afterwards, we follow the process of rule-making we formalized at the first step, and define together the rules themselves. We, tau's developers, will be highly active at those post-genesis processes, but we will not hold any extra power. Each one of us will begin at genesis as equal exactly like any one else. 

We put a technology for decentralized democracy on the table, that can scale from democracy over a small club in the form of Context tau, into, who knows, maybe even state laws. I see no technological barrier for that. Nevertheless, we also do not have any magical ultimate set of rules.

The task is hard, and the philosophical questions are overwhelming. But there is a limit to what technology can do. It can give us a platform for decentralized democracy, but it cannot set the rules for us. I cannot exaggerate about the importance of the task of bootstrapping a decentralized democracy and forming its "constitution", therefore I won't, and will only mention that I guess that many readers share the same feeling with me - that we probably can do at least slightly better than our current situation.

Obviously, the last thing we can do as developers of a democratic system is to set its rules ourselves.

Formalizing a real-life decentralized democracy is not the first users' duty, of course. It is a much larger-scale process. The first users will need to define how to change the rules of the root chain - not even deal with the technical details like the maximum block size, but what happens if we want to change the block size, namely what are the conditions for a root-chain's rule change. It is an interesting litmus test as for itself. How would the rules of changing the rules evolve given our new logical and decentralization abilities, one can only barely imagine. Let's all hope that tau will actually evolve into collaboration of morals, not only economics, code and knowledge.
Comments