First step is to enable lunc staking

and just in case some people might still be confused about the current reality we are in. @Deathstar_Daddy
here is a clear definition of 51% attack:
In a decentralized network, a minority group of individuals seized control of the masses through gaming the system.

Enable LUNC staking right now. It is the right thing to do:

1 Like

LUNC needs to be fully functional. Sorry if Do Kwon doesn’t agree with that, but it would be best for the entire Terra community. Then let developers choose what platform, what chain, they want to build on. The more options the better.

1 Like

I think the recovery of this project should take place in 3 steps, first a hardfork to cut the supply to 1/10, then implementing a burn mechanism through a fee, and finally giving the project purpose.

I assume you are accusing the Validators with this statement.

In theory you are correct and I never said otherwise. Could be one or a group with equal intentions.

That said opening up staking will increase the odds of such attacks and unlike the current validators the new ones could have malicious intent rather than fixing the chain.

Now how likley could someone pull off a real pos 51 attack? Are there already safeguards in place to prevent it? If they already exist and can be adjusted to work on the super inflated position we are in now. Than we could be fine. That NEEDS to be confirmed is all I am saying. We need safeguards in place. Then I agree with opening up staking. My gazzillion coins could be earning me more coins so of course I’m open to it.

One more thing needs to be addressed regarding staking and that is rewards. With the pending increase on the size of the staked tokens how will that reflect in rewards? Rewards are already Increasing the circulation supply faster and running out of coins to pay rewards is a concern. Were burning on one end to bring the total supply down, while increasing circulating supply by nearly a Billion a day.

What is happening with the current validators is also not ok either btw. I do see that they are gaming the voting system and regardless of their intentions, the fact that it’s possible needs to be fixed.

that’s the problem. You are not sure of anything. If you want to be 100% sure. Then a complete centralized system aka traditional banking is the way. You can’t have it both ways sir. So “opening up staking will increase the odds of such attacks and unlike the current validators the new ones could have malicious intent rather than fixing the chain” is not a valid argument. If you are ok with such logic. Then why not just stop the chain anytime the market sells off. There is no limit to collectivism.

1 Like

When you are talking about people life savings, that (even though the current price does not reflect it), are in the $Billions, you double check. You make sure that the system will be protected.

WHY do you want to rush it so bad? We have already waited this long, and its going to take time to burn down the supply anyways.

If you open up staking now, opening the doors to Trillions getting locked up in staking, that means they will never be burned down. That means a very large group will continue to hold the chain hostage, even if they are not intending on causing damage, the governance system will be forever broken.

Believe me when I say opening up staking would actually help increase the chances of my plan getting voted in so why would I not want to do that??? BUT I would not jeopardize the system for anything.

I also get the current system is no better, but it’s going to be easier to fix now, than rushing to open it up, and causing even more damage. Damage that could become permanent without drastic action in the future.

Its not just a 51 attack the system needs protection from. Its all kinds of governance issues.

Whats to stop the new validator’s from proposing, and then voting on a pay increase…oh!!! :thinking:

A 6.5 trillion attack is better than the current 0.0005 attack, at least that was open, now it is dictatorial and contrary to the intent of the blockchain.

1 Like

Tell me, what are you double checking? Are you or anyone else doing anything during this supposedly “for the greater good” governance halt? Do we have a plan on how to open up governance?
The answer for all of the above is a clearly NO.

Opening up governance is not a choice. It is an obligation. It is the duty of the management to fulfill their promises. Decentralized governance is the product that you sold to people, and now you are taking that away indefinitely? Whatever “good” cause you are telling yourself. This is borderline frau.d at best.

If I am a validator of V1. I would have issued a statement prepared by my lawyer on this topic like 3 weeks ago. Most people obviously don’t think detail enough about the legal consequences when they deal with large amount of money, let alone money form the public. Reason why lawyers tends to make the most money in the end.

Exactly. Which is why you have to stop being creative. LFG has been playing with fire. They are going to have litigation risk behind their backs for the rest of their life. Time will show the world how absurd this whole event has been.

1 Like

Hi @vixasi7192 ,

While I agree with you to the fullest extent possible, and have been working with some others including @raider7019 (the author of pull request 776), who himself is a blockchain developer and has undergone a review of the code regarding the protocol change, I feel compelled to respond to your governance discussion toward a proposal and ask that you realize a few things up front (to be successful):

  • You do not need a proposal to re-enable staking. Documentation specifically states that legitimate protocol changes are made only by governance proposals that have passed, and that governance is decentralized. The protocol code changes that stopped staking, and thereby prevented and excluded all pre and post crash LUNA owners who were not already staked from staking for voting purposes, were not made in accordance with, and actually violated, the documented governance rules. As the github pull request 63 that you pointed to for the cosmos-sdk changes also resulted in companion pull requests to the classic-core to change to the protocol for classic-core from 0.5.18 to 0.5.19 without a governance proposal vote (which is contrary to the very governance documents and was a violation of the protocol).
  • The correct protocol, according to governance passed proposals, would be classic-core 0.5.18 (and every validator should either roll back to it, or upgrade to a path that disables 0.5.19 - which disabled MsgCreateValidator and MsgDelegate).
    • However, you need 2/3 of the validators by voting power to halt at the same time [and preferably 2/3 of physical validators], upgrade, and then un-halt (and preferably it would be all v1 validators at the same moment). Please correct any mis-statement @raider7019 .
    • Let’s just say there are some legitimate and appropriate back channel efforts that are ongoing that get at the end result of your discussion without a proposal, but on the basis of returning to the appropriate protocol code (however, if there should be a proposal, see my notes below for humble suggestions that I would ask that you consider).
  • Up until proposal 3568 no proposal has passed without, in my estimation, TFL / LFG’s support (I could be wrong, but if so, then some one sympathetic to what would be in their best interests as I think through those interests from a business perspective). Terra “Classic” Proposal 3568 either also passed with support from TFL / LFG, or from heightened validator support (which it certainly had validator support that previous proposals have not).
    • If this proposal goes into the system, then there is no sitting back by any of us, we must all coordinately communicate with validators. I would suggest that @Paul_Leprecheur and @raider7019 be tapped for that coordination effort and help the rest of us know which things should be done that does not shut off legitimate communication channels with validators, but also enables validators to understand in no uncertain terms, that as far as we are concerned, that this is a must pass proposal with great amount of support (and we would need to identify that support). They know the actors that are currently working on legitimate validator communication, and probably have the best ability to coordinate that information with those persons.
  • If you are going to put in a proposal, let me suggest that your proposal should include the following language (or at least include these items):
    • While there are some other good pull requests out there (such as 775, and 778), there is only one, in my estimation that reverts 0.5.18 using an upgrade path, a cosmos version that has been in production previously, and uses the absolute minimum code in accomplishing this [only makes one dependency change]. Each of those, 776, 775, and 778 [which does make minor protocol changes] capture the majority of intent of returning to the protocol as it was in 0.5.18 [however, they focus on the necessary changes for governance, and so 776 and 775 have not focused on changes in 0.5.20]. Validators need to have a path for upgrade or downgrade - depending on how they proceed (I think that if a proposal is passed, rather than signal “permission” to return to a protocol change that should never have been made, and was not appropriate the way that it happened, that it signal to validators an upgrade or downgrade path. You can at least say that the promise that “Once… what is being termed as Terra Classic launches, this will be reverted obviously” from pull request 63 for cosmos-sdk, at least for delegation and validator node registration, has not happened and is long overdue. Language being humbly suggested for a proposal:
    • Proposal to return to appropriate protocol as passed by governance community:

        - If TerraForm Labs does not merge classic-core pull request 776 
             ( https://github.com/terra-money/classic-core/pull/776 ), build, test, 
             and coordinate with validators instructions for upgrade within 5 days 
             directly after the passage of this proposal, then on the 5th day after 
             this proposal shall pass at exactly 4pm UTC, validators shall:
      
                  -- halt (and unhalt after downgrade)
                  -- downgrade to classic-core 0.5.18 downloading at the bottom of this page:
                       --- https://github.com/terra-money/classic-core/releases/tag/v0.5.18
                       --- classic-documentation that may help:  
                            ---- https://classic-docs.terra.money/docs/full-node/run-a-full-terra-node/updates-and-additional.html
                       --- support contacts ("classic" community support of two blockchain developers):
                            ---- https://github.com/Raider7019
                            ---- https://github.com/ZaradarDFDS
      
        - If classic-core 0.5.18 build is no longer available for download at (near bottom of page):
             -- https://github.com/terra-money/classic-core/releases/tag/v0.5.18
             -- Then validators should download a build of pull request 776, with instruction for upgrade,
                 specified in the readme.txt file at:
                 --- https://github.com/terra-rebels/classic-core
                 --- This repository is a community driven repository of v1 community developers. 
                      ---- See here for the list of developers involved in the project:
                            ----- https://github.com/orgs/terra-rebels/people
                            ----- Many of these developers have years of experience in blockchain
                                   development, and understand the need for appropriate financial institution
                                   grade testing, including the two developers listed above. 
      

For those who believe this would present a problem security wise, let me remind you that every person who owns LUNA “classic” is part of governance, and by definition has a right to stake and vote. If you would like to protect your stake, I suggest start purchasing LUNA at those exchanges that are still selling it if this becomes an active proposal. For those who are still skeptical on this point, I suggest you read my response on this point, especially the bullet points around proof of stake and governance attack:

Thank you so much for your consideration - I hope you each have a great day :slight_smile:

4 Likes

Hi @vixasi7192 ,

Let me amend the humbly suggested language (there was a mistake in the readme file address):

Proposal to return to appropriate protocol as passed by governance community:

  - If TerraForm Labs does not merge classic-core pull request 776 
       ( https://github.com/terra-money/classic-core/pull/776 ), build, test, 
       and coordinate with validators instructions for upgrade within 5 days 
       directly after the passage of this proposal, then on the 5th day after 
       this proposal shall pass at exactly 4pm UTC, validators shall:

            -- halt (and unhalt after downgrade)
            -- downgrade to classic-core 0.5.18 downloading at the bottom of this page:
                 --- https://github.com/terra-money/classic-core/releases/tag/v0.5.18
                 --- classic-documentation that may help:  
                      ---- https://classic-docs.terra.money/docs/full-node/run-a-full-terra-node/updates-and-additional.html
                 --- support contacts ("classic" community support of two blockchain developers):
                      ---- https://github.com/Raider7019
                      ---- https://github.com/ZaradarDFDS

  - If classic-core 0.5.18 build is no longer available for download at (near bottom of page):
       -- https://github.com/terra-money/classic-core/releases/tag/v0.5.18
       -- Then validators should download a build of pull request 776, with instruction for upgrade,
           specified in the README.md file at:
           --- https://github.com/terra-rebels/classic-core#readme
           --- This repository is a community driven repository of v1 community developers. 
                ---- See here for the list of developers involved in the project:
                      ----- https://github.com/orgs/terra-rebels/people
                      ----- Many of these developers have years of experience in blockchain
                             development, and understand the need for appropriate financial institution
                             grade testing, including the two developers listed above.
1 Like

First let me clarify that I am was never involved in the decision to halt staking. Halting staking is not a governance halt, but it inhabits legitamate governance I am not disagreeing with you there.

I am also for the most part not even disagreeing with you at all. I have said staking needs to be re-enabled as soon as possoble, it’s even IN the an I proposed. The only difference is I am saying is to not go in guns a blazing. Do a spell check as it were. Make sure the system can handle the stress of 6.9 Trillikn coins. Remember LUNC was NEVER built for this.

Also how do we prevent trillions of coins from getting locked up in staking the moment it opens up? Do we set limits? Limits could hurt the governance system but which would be worse.

Also if you read my proposal for governance I also am proposing that we split the vote between validators & Token holders. This would give a more fair voting structure.

I’m not being creative. I am being careful. I am trying to help rebuild not only LUNC but restore those $Billions to their rightful owners. It will take a bit of patience and lots of energy but IT WILL be worth it.

I am not sure how far litigation will go, but it soulnds like Do Kwon will have more problems than that that will also affect the rest of his life.

TFL needs to approve such a pull request from what I understand. I may be wrong, but I do find it as an interesting approach.

Can you get in touch with me and let’s work together. We both want to restore governance. We may have different approaches but the end goal is the same.

My main concern is that opening staking now will lock up trillikns of coins in staking meaning our burn process will not work.

My suggestion was setting limits and opening up 25% of the vote to token holders, not just those that stake/validate.

What are your thoughts on this approach? Also would love to chat in Discord, and help work out a solution ALL would be happy with.

Hi @Deathstar_Daddy ,

I am limited on time through until Monday, but I would love to connect. Maybe also @vixasi7192 , @raider7019 , and @Paul_Leprecheur should connect with us as well (and then @vixasi7192 can communicate back to this thread what @vixasi7192 feels is appropriate and helpful) - if that sounds good, then each of you who are interested can message me in this system, propose some times that work for you with time zone info, and maybe I can work to try to coordinate a meeting?

I hope you are having a great day today :slight_smile:

1 Like

Sounds good, I will send you a private message with details. Have a great weekend

Thanks @aeuser999 for bringing this proposal to my attention. I have been super busy over recent days helping others (@Zaradar) to establish the terra-rebels github development organisation, and so I have not been so active in this forum recently.

The terra-rebels development team (now with around 15 members) has been formed from a group of experienced blockchain developers and cloud/devops engineers (including a distinguished professor of computer science at a prestigious US university).

Our objective is to provide a capable and experienced software development organisation that is capable of maintaining the Terra Classic codebase now and enhancing it going forward on behalf of the community to deliver new software releases in response to passed community proposals once governance is restored.

The three initial pull requests (PRs) developed by our members (775, 776, and 778) represent different options to re-enable governance only, or governance with swaps and IBC channels (778), all of which were disabled by TFL and validators in contravention to the published governance process. We had little hope that TFL would merge the PRs into their terra-money repository, but that was not their primary purpose.

The idea of producing and publishing these different PRs was firstly to demonstrate to the community our capability as a development team to work with the Terra Classic codebase, and secondly to provide a series of technical options/choices for the community and validator representatives to consider.

We are currently working on an implementation of proposal 3568 which will also include the reactivation of the governance system, and this will be offered to the validator community who were behind that proposal.

The message to the validator community from the Terra Classic developer community is clear that no proposals will be implemented that do not also come with delegation and validator registration reactivated.

The messy codebase, poorly constructed development environment, and deprecated bombay testnet are just a few of the challenges that we face, but I am confident that we have the right people with the right skillsets to overcome them.

You are welcome to join our discord (for anybody who is not there already) to collaborate with us and observe our work first hand:

3 Likes

Terra-rebels are a flame in the darkness. A group aiming to restart Terra, abandoned by TFL, in the respect of community decisions. I am truly humbled by @raider7019 and @Zaradar dedication.

This start by reinstating governance, and as such wording proposed by @aeuser999 is clearly the way forward.

First we end the dictatorship, then we can all discuss about the best options moving forward, and vote as intended in the original Terra vision.

1 Like

Do Kwon got his 2.6 Billion out in time so I think he had planned on leaving for a while, pre crash it seems.

Hey raider, thanks for all the work. I haven’t seen anyone talk about wlunc yet. Is it safe to assume that it will still continue to track Lunc and be used? If so according to Etherscan, there are still 347B tokens in supply. I haven’t seen a burn proposal for wlunc. Could you please share your thoughts on this?

Thank you!

Good idea for staking reward. Pls suggest percentage of staking reward, also.

looks like proposal 4095 is going to pass. this is a major step towards lunc reborn!

2 Likes