A Simple Proposal

A simple proposal for Major League is probably one of the most exciting athletes in the sports world today. Players such as Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, etc. can see the enjoyment of baseball. However, some people have forgotten that Major League has more talent than three people. I am talking about the referee. You may be shocked when I say this, but believing in me, they are wonderful players. Can you imagine that they are working under the same conditions?

Most of today's DAO seems to be planning a simple proposal -> voting -> enforcement structure. There are two deep traps in this approach. First, it is inefficient and difficult to achieve. If the proposal does not pass, the process must be started from the beginning. If the proposal passed but did not meet the goal of execution, the entire process will be restarted. Secondly, enforcement of the exercise of voting rights is either corrupt or unreadable. If the proposal is sufficiently short that most DAO members can read it, they can easily be misunderstood as they transition to a complete plan.

The design of the first iteration of BNS is very simple. Proposals can be sent to BNS for a fee. Later, BNS decided to vote using artificially controlled "neurons". These votes automatically follow each other, as in the case of fluid democracy. When neurons respond to stimuli and feedback, BNS adapts and learns to make better decisions. For timing, neurons that trace relationships are cascaded in an indeterminate way to make decisions. Each neuron works using special client software running by the owner at the edge of the network. The chain resident part of the BNS can access the privileged opcodes in the EVM. It is used to run proposals to use.

Nakamoto consensus is a very simple and elegant stochastic consensus mechanism. This works as follows. During roughly regular time intervals the network selects a leader that proposes a block that he believes should be the next block. Then he broadcasts the block to the network and the node accepts or refuses it. Leaders are encouraged to propose effective blocks that respect certain system constraints, such as no double costs. Computational intensive power is time consuming and may slow down the consensus protocol. Furthermore, it does not depend on the number of nodes in the network, it depends on the collective computing capacity of the network. Therefore, when used in Zilliqa, PoW as an agreement mechanism can not directly use small fragment size. That is why Zilliqa needs another agreement.