Notes

forum-network/notes/dao.md

@@ -1 +1,35 @@
-A DAO is a group of cooperating entities
+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.

forum-network/notes/validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Possible statements
+
+- It is what I would have done
+- It is consistent with what I (would) have done