36 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
36 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
A DAO is a group of cooperating entities.
|
|
|
|
If we're running our own network, it probably makes sense to consider nodes as the participants.
|
|
|
|
If we're running as smart contracts, it probably makes sense to consider individual addresses as the participants.
|
|
|
|
These schemes overlap, since both involve asymmetric keys.
|
|
|
|
Each node must validate the work of the other nodes
|
|
|
|
Our protocol will be a peer protocol, and will rely on signatures.
|
|
|
|
Therefore we arrive at a requirement for nodes: they must be physically secured so that private keys are protected.
|
|
|
|
We also arrive at a requirement for our network protocol: It must be possible to sign messages and verify message signatures against known public keys.
|
|
|
|
The network protocol MAY support asking peers about other peers / telling other peers about peers.
|
|
|
|
IF we support this IT SHALL BE linked with each node's reputation.
|
|
|
|
CAN WE SAY that each node MUST maintain A VIEW of THE ENTIRE / (THE CURRENT) / (ALL / CURRENT) HASHES / MERKLE TREE / -- World state, History
|
|
|
|
CAN WE GET AWAY WITH ONLY SAYING that each node maintains its own view.
|
|
|
|
WHAT is our protocol for evaluating the perspectives offered by peers?
|
|
|
|
- If one node perceives consensus among many others, that may sway their opinion.
|
|
|
|
- There may be opportunity during "informal voting" / non-binding validation pools (low tokenLossRatio) to gather this sort of information.
|
|
|
|
- If there is exact agreement, we have a very efficient case.
|
|
|
|
- If there is the HOPE of exact agreement, mistakes and attacks can be costly
|
|
|
|
- If there is an EXPECTATION of exact agreement, there must be externalities supporting that agreement, i.e. a common protocol and governance of that protocol.
|