Improvement of the Validator System for prevention of 51% Attack

Governance & Proposals
1

Summary

It is a proposal to suggest a precautionary measure of 51% attack that may exist in the future.
I devised a policy for natural purification by apply handicaps, not hard-line measures.

Motivation

Recently, the L1 task force team had a problem due to a sudden security issue and the member left.

This problem was caused by differences in ideology related to the security of the chain, not by specific profits. Therefore, it is an issue that cannot be said who is more right.

However, not all validators suddenly have the coding ability to purchase bare metal and operate validators. There are education, time and cost problems, and there are no benefits to it.

It is unrealistic to argue that the factory should be stopped and the domestic handicrafts should be done because of environmental destruction.

So I propose this idea that would meet the needs of both sides and yet be feasible.

Proposal

It’s just a simple idea and it doesn’t force the L1 task force team to adopt it.

LUNC Coin belongs to TFL’s Terra Station, so technical consultations with TFL may be necessary for the proposal to be realized.

1. Node Provider Diversification Policy

aaa1
aaa11237Ă—600 112 KB

The biggest problem with the current controversial topic is that one provider company has a over 51% share.

Of course, it would be best for all validators to run node servers in their own homes, but as I said earlier, it is practically impossible to realize immediately, and there are cost and safety issues.

And legislation that is compulsory on any issue is hard to succeed.

Therefore, if there are 5 validators provided by one node company, they can receive 100% staking ratio from the chain.

However, the staking reward ratio will be reduced sequentially by 10% from 6th validators.

When this handicap is applied, it can naturally resolve the concentration of all validators in a single node company. They will be find out another company or prepare bare metal.

Of course, if node providers apply a higher discount rate and the validator can benefit from more than 10% of staking compensation, they will use the service with a 10% handicap.

So you can add one more policy here.

2. Validator Delegate Decentralization Policy

aaa2
aaa21237Ă—600 88.6 KB

Currently, the most problematic thing in LUNC is that too much voting power is concentrated in TOP 3 validators.

Nakamoto Coefficient is much lower than LUNA.

In order to solve this problem, I also considered the maximum staking limit on one validator, but it’s not a good idea to introduce coercion in all cases.

So I came up with an idea that when it’s more than 5% of the voting power, the reward for mining in this validator is gradually decreasing.

We call it coin mining. Even when you think about real-world mines, if there are too many miners in one mine, the amount of mining will decrease.

You can think of it as a similar concept. Handicap is applied rather than forcing to induce decentralization.

Perhaps applying these two proposals will help blockchain security.

Of course, this is not a fundamental solution. We’re exposed to a lot of dangers in this world. But I know there’s no world that’s 100% ideal, so We try to be as safe as possible.

A realistic alternative will be needed rather than an ideal solution.

I’m not sure if this proposal is technically possible. But I trust the technical capabilities of the L1 task force team.

I’m not in the dev team and I don’t run a validator node. Therefore, I would like to inform you that there is no conflict of interest.

16 Likes
3

Take away the power to vote and make each individual able to vote independently. We know that they will never do that because that small group of people want to continue to maintain power but it could change if the community votes in favor of a better, more balanced system.

4

The voting power is a good system that encourages validators to actively participate in chain operations. But now that has changed essential little bit.
One thing that doesn’t change is that the proposal that benefits the community will pass.
So proposals should be designed to reduce the FUD of certain people and to benefit almost people.

5

Thank you for bringing this debate to Agora because the LUNC community must address the Allnodes problem.

The Allnodes.com homepage describes their services as:

“A non-custodial platform where you can host Masternodes, Validator Nodes, Super Nodes, Sentry Nodes, Full Nodes, and partake in Staking in over 60 protocols.”

@faddat revealed Allnodes’ claim of being a “non-custodial platform” to be false. The fact Allnodes continues to represent themselves as providing a non-custodial service is alarming and cannot be ignored. If the LUNC community is serious about winning back consumer confidence, then we need to rebuke dishonest advertising.

While I think the proposal set forth in the OP is a step in the right direction, the most straightforward and effective solution is for the community to take responsibility for our delegations and redelegate to uncompromised validators.

1 Like
7

That makes sense.
But we have to check our condition before point out the others.

The reason why the LUNC chain was able to hold it for 6 months after it was attacked is because we are in a position of socially disadvantaged.
We have been helped by many outsiders. Simply put, we are far short of exercising sovereignty.
Allnode’s influence on the LUNC chain is very strong. And they’re one of the companies that is helping LUNC gain sovereignty.
If we had a powerful ecosystem like Ethereum, we would be able to take a hard-line approach, do capital damage to Allnode’s business and force validators to out from node provider.

But we don’t. In fact, more than 60% of the current validators are in the red without even recovering the cost of operating the node.
We have to consider the cost of spending in the real world while we exist in the crypto currency world.

There should be a clear distinction between love a LUNC chain and grasping its current state. You shouldn’t have hostile relationships with any outside companies.

Implementing a handicap policy in the name of a chain’s deadly security problem would not be opposed by Allnode. This is justification. They will support for this proposal.

1 Like
8

Allnodes raised commissions to incentivate the decentralization, he is already helping the lunc community, let’s focus on building guys!:+1:

4 Likes
9

the voting power of the validators only makes the blockchain centralized in which a few have the power to make the decisions and not all the users of a community.

10

I appreciate your desire to be diplomatic but this is a matter of dishonest business practices. The last thing Terra Classic needs is a lawsuit against the central point of failure for misleading consumers. Allnodes should remove their claim of providing a non-custodial service and then we can talk diplomacy.

11

Your argument does not represent Luna Classic. You can proceed with the lawsuit personally, but please do not write the name of lunc.

12

Allnodes claims to be non-custodial when they are not. This is a fact not an argument. It is also a fact that Allnodes’ misrepresentation exposes the Terra Classic blockchain to potentially catastrophic liability because they host ~40% of validator voting power.

13

Their services are diverse and have now released non-custodial services. Did the previous management service specify this option? I didn’t remember that.
Anyway, I’m referring to a lawsuit in your argument. It’s up to the individual to file a complaints, but don’t say it represents the community. Your lawsuit is not the action the community wants.

14

Friend, I do not want any lawsuits. I am flagging potential liability because I want Terra Classic to succeed. The fact Allnodes released that tweet literally yesterday shows shining light on this issue is producing results. My hope is the LUNC community will prioritize transparency, honesty, and accountability.