Miners have to signal their support and help to lock in Taproot. It is a decentralized consensus but satoshi does not call it as DAO.
Because it's not DAO. The signal means the
miner pool is ready to support Taproot, although some people perceive it as weighted vote to support/oppose Taproot.
Upgrades for Bitcoin need to get consensus from miners on the network. The last vote for Taproot to lock in is an example:
https://taproot.watch/Miners have to signal their support and help to lock in Taproot. It is a decentralized consensus but satoshi does not call it as DAO.
Locked In: Bitcoin’s Taproot Upgrade Gets Its 90% MandateAccording to the parameters set forward by “Speedy Trial,” if at least 90% of the blocks mined in any of the designated two-week difficulty periods “signal” their support for the upgrade, then the activation process can begin. To be more precise: 1,815 out of 2,016 blocks mined within a period have to include a little piece of encoded information that indicates that the miners who mined those blocks are in favor of the upgrade.
- 1.The organizational form is a distributed autonomous organization, not a company system.
- 2.Based on certain open and fair rules, the organization can upgrade the rules through governance.
- 3.The incentive of the ecosystem is based on Token, and the participants of the ecosystem can obtain various Token rewards.
- 4.Token holders jointly own the control and ownership of the organization, and can determine the development direction of the organization.
In regards to Number Four, it cannot apply in cryptocurrency network if you truely want a well Decentralized Network/system. If you base that part on Satoshi's Bitcoin standard, you will easily notice it's incompatible. Bitcoin only requires you to run full nodes to take part in proper network consensus, and any participant can determine the development direction of Bitcoin as long as he/she can solve important problems.
A truely public network is too important to be left in the hands of few people with lots of money. It's more than a company, it's actually a Nation. Requiring citizens to own huge sums of money before they can take part in governance or determine the development direction of a Nation sounds like financial corruption to me.
So a true cryptocurrency network must not require people to own huge amount of money to be able to have a say in the network. They could try that on centralized companies.
Anyone should be able to easily take part in governance/consensus for the sake of decentralization.
Thanks to the three wonderful replies, which allowed me to gain more knowledge. I describe the Bitcoin community as a DAO here, more from an ideological level. Here I did not consider too many technical implementation details. These are two completely different levels. Technical thinking must be 100% rigorous, and the ideological level is relatively more open. First, let's take a look at how I define DAO. DAO refers to a form of organization that can operate autonomously without human intervention and management through a series of open and fair rules. The Bitcoin community is also such an organization. Open and fair rules are determined by the Bitcoin white paper, and then participants in different roles participate in activities according to the unified rules in the white paper. At the same time, here I am referring to the Bitcoin community, not the Bitcoin network. We token holders are also part of the Bitcoin community.
