Doc Update

psztorc · Jun 19, 2015 · a08c4c6 · a08c4c6
1 parent 0f3711b
commit a08c4c6
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 6 changed files with 4 additions and 36 deletions.
diff --git a/docs/1_Purpose.pdf b/docs/1_Purpose.pdf
diff --git a/docs/2_PM_Types.pdf b/docs/2_PM_Types.pdf
diff --git a/docs/3_PM_Applications.pdf b/docs/3_PM_Applications.pdf
diff --git a/docs/README.md b/docs/README.md
@@ -20,39 +20,9 @@ Other papers which describe the overall purposes and goals of this endeavour:
 
 Addendum / Errata
 ------------------------------------------
-Find a typo? Was anything not **completely clear**? Send me an email or pull request right into this sucker:
-
-### Whitepaper
-
-1. There is an error in the description of RBCR. The first column of the U matrix is transformed, as in the statistical technique of PCA, into the first score and loading. It is the first Score which becomes the new reputation vector.
-2. Change terminology: "Voting Period" implies that what-is-being-discussed is "the time it takes to vote". Instead, call it "Intervote Period", or "Voting Cycle Length" or something.
-2. Emphasize that Tau-'Voting' and Tau-'Unsealing' really do not vary anywhere near as much as Tau-'Idle'. In fact, Voting/Unsealing need to be more or less fixed at 1000 or so blocks.
-3. Explain the {'free option' to own a future Branch} better.
-4. Change the Encryption Vote Seal method of voting to the Hash-Publish as described on forum.
-5. Emphasize that Auditors fight over Pooled Trading Fees: 
-	1. Half to the Auditors.
-	2. Half to the Ballot which agreed with the Auditors (this is what encourages minority voters to 'stick it out').
-	3. Erase the 'Audit Fee parameter' as it is terrible way of explaining this.
-4. Update Figure of the Attacker-flowchart, possibly warrants a whole second page at this point.
-5. Explain the Miner-Veto Concept better
-	1. Princeton idea isn't great - consensus failure, laziness, instability
-	2. Better is a 'fail-SAFE' (more like mining an empty block)
-		1. Nonce + Vetos have no signature.
-	2. Explain that it will probably never be used (and this is a good thing).
-2. Fee1 set algorithmically (details to follow).
-4. Add 'Sequence Numbers' for Decisions (for far off Decisions)
-3. Explain that it is extremely easy to have Markets not just reference Decisions, but also LOG, LN, ()^2, ()^3, etc of Decisions. This includes NotSequenced() of Decision. These might be called 'Gratis Decisions'.
-4. Update the Vote-Outcome plot using the new PlotJ().
-5. Add the 'teacher story' as an appendix item.
-6. Typo on page 4: "continute".
-7. Add backlinks to figures.
-8. Explain that Scaled Decisions resolving to ".5" must be 'dodged' from the user's point of view
-	1. 'Unclear' should return ".5", and '.5' should return ~".5000001"
-	1. Remove previous explanation about max-min. 
-2. Describe an "Open" transaction, (likely ideal for low-dimensional, illiquid markets) where 2 parties could purchase and split $X worth of complete-sets. For example, pay $20,000 total at prices (p1, p2) to give (s1, s2) shares to identities (i1, i2).
-3. Add the concept of "non-outsourceable" VTC buying/selling (one VTC private key per transfer), to prevent an obscure but critical assurance-contract attack (which would place attacker a world where he only had to purchase when his attack would succeed).
-4. Improve Appendix b / 2 on page 35, by highlight the (1-p) case, and by adding examples that aren't 2 by 2, to highlight the ( p + (1-p) ) / 2 aggregation in the code.
-5. Do the MonteCarlo experiment (random matrices, test vs more-central)
+Find a typo? Was anything not **completely clear**? Send me an email or pull request into this section:
+
+
 
 
 FAQ
@@ -68,6 +38,4 @@ Notes to Self
 2. Toggle an 'Voter/Employee Mode' to access a Voting tab.
 3. Concept of a "Voter helper": gets info from 'recentralizers' (reddit, google, twitter, etc).
 4. Arbitrage Helper (described slightly in Paper #3).
-5. Voters for 'Unclear' always become ".5". For this reason, clear votes for a value which would actually translate to .5 must instead translate to .500001 or so.
-6. To stop runaway Branch-growth, the process must kick out to miners somewhere (possibly by requiring tx fees with Votes).
-7. Branch-participation aggregation formula (should probably be based on current accumulated-trading-fees).
+5. Voters for 'Unclear' always become ".5". For this reason, clear votes for a value which would actually translate to .5 must instead translate to .500001 or so.
diff --git a/docs/Timestamp/Truthcoin_1.3.pdf b/docs/Timestamp/Truthcoin_1.3.pdf
diff --git a/docs/Truthcoin_Whitepaper.pdf b/docs/Truthcoin_Whitepaper.pdf