I think you should listen to what mcf-rocks is saying and find dev’s who know code base. The man is trying to help and you want to argue about his knowledge. The best approach would be to obtain as much knowledge as you can from him and ask for his continuing guidance and how to proceed following guided steps.
I think you should contact the bloke that put in the governance proposal (the guy who forked ETH). See if he is willing to help. I’m sure he would be the perfect person to lead a recovery and I also think he would be a wiz at base code. If anyone was to work a way around being blocked by validators surely contacting him might be a great move and a way forward. You don’t seem to know the next step, I bet he does.
At this point, I think that is a pretty solid idea. Lots of competing interests, lots of useless name calling/insults, and little progress. Someone has to grab the the bull by the horns here. I mentioned previously to recruit members (or former members) of the Doge or Shib team, who, despite your thoughts regarding the utility of the coin, are quite adept at community governance. With that being said, I DO NOT think we should fall into the trap of having a new “leader”. This destroys products, as human nature, ego, power tend to eclipse whatever the community is trying to establish. Look at the toxicity of Do Kwon, or Charles from Cardano, or take your pick of dozens of others whose projects fell prey to the whims and shortcomings of the “leader.” No one should be a “symbol” of LUNC going forward. Leaders are human, and humans are inherently flawed. But recruiting the individual you suggested (from the ETH fork) wouldn’t fall into that category, as he could simply help us “get on the right track,” recruit (or help keep existing) devs, see as they are paid for their time/services (through old tax proposal, staking, community pool ideas), and help implement some of the changes being proposed.
Do you agree with the idea about contacting the guy who forked ETH and ask for help? Also can you tell us who your are and experience please. Something needs to be done and fast. I personally have no skills but am aware of the importance of finding the right approach.
@mcf-rocks I’ve noticed you have a validator profile in the terra-money github committed 6 days ago. I assume that makes you a validator (unless there is another hurdle you need to get through to finalize this)…as a new validator (assuming that is the case as said before) can you see and vote for proposals using that status?
People have been emailing me the proposal number and link.
I’m just kind of wondering what will happen to LUNC - what’s the path forward - obviously without a coherent plan and path forward the following will happen: community shrinks, price falls, exchanges deelist, validators quit and go work at mcdonalds… it’s really kind of up to you guys… validators only run the network… what is the vision… could it become a meme coin, a specialised coin, what’s the vision, idk man… maybe there isn’t a path forward and LUNC dies, maybe that’s god’s will… idk.
I think you need core devs right now, maybe. If that guy can help you, I think you should talk to him. Not just for technical stuff, but the bigger question - is there a place in the universe for LUNC.
At least we have some good suggestions but can’t vote, even if you guys are going to give up, then why not let someone else try to change it? You guys don’t want to run validation anymore, there are others who will validate, but what does it mean when you close pledges and don’t let new validators in?
It was a code change that did that, and it is a code change to undo that…
Probably you don’t even need to code it, just revert to earlier version of the code.
I’ll take the change – I think everyone else would too, there is no hostility to LUNC… the way it worked is that the Luna core devs would release a new version in github, then do an announcement in the discord “validators please upgrade your nodes to version xyz”, not super complicated.
I feel like your problem is you don’t have devs / ppl who know what they are doing, and i don’t know how to fix that.
First of all I’m not targeting you, but what I don’t understand is, why doesn’t Do do this code? What is it afraid of? The voice of the community is so loud that it doesn’t hear it at all? What is it afraid of? It has already given up on lunc, because it is afraid that once the control is handed over to the community, if lunc can come back to life, it will bring out its failure!
Noone can tell you how it goes forward because it would be a simply lie.
All we can do is put propisals out and community will decide via voting which route we will go.
However without any voting there will be never any legit route lunc could move on.
@to the people asking for the guy of eth fork …sorry to say and it should be really no offensive but you have completly no idea what you are talking about.
You just rewrite complete nonsense.
First of all Ethereum Classic NEVER forked.Ethereum Classic is the orginal chain.ETH forked away from ETC because a hacker stole big part of ETC tokens and a quick decission had to be made.ETH forked with the support of majority.
Is forking an option for LUNC ?
To answer that question is what would happen if we would fork away.
We will lose all listing on centralized exchanges.Is it possible they will replace the new chain with lunc ?Yes but realisticly and from past experience without any legitimation from community the chances are very low.
What else would happen?The new chain would lose all existing dapps.
Would dapps move to the new chain?That is a big question nobody can answer however they high probably will stay there where money is.
"I think you need core devs right now, maybe. If that guy can help you, I think you should talk to him. Not just for technical stuff, but the bigger question - is there a place in the universe for LUNC.’
Devs and core devs don’t work for free.First question they ask are payment terms.
How can you make any deal with a dev when community can’t decide about anything even paying dev’s for their work.
“Probably you don’t even need to code it, just revert to earlier version of the code.”
Miniting Luna and swap for UST needs to stay disabled.
Your answer about github is the next problem.Who controls all resources of lunc ?
Answer the devs who are working now on Luna.
How can take a new dev group control over these resources like github admin if they can’t be validated by the community.
@mcf-rocks Thank you for the confirmation ref validator. Ultimately we need to make a decision to migrate away (or not) the source code to a new github home for ownership purposes - but being able to make a decision comes first .
Now regarding the VISION. I am pretty certain most people want to get the LUNC/USTC combo to it’s previous glory with the addition of some logic to fix the attack vectors we have experienced making sure it won’t have the same scale if were to happen again.
Personally I think we need to look past the status quo and fast forward few years (in addition to re-peg) expand the links to other chains that have real world utility (and business backing) like MIOTA/XRP] which would play to our advantage, when crypto hit the “utility” maturity stage, as collaterals and capital highways with the first true crypto based stablecoin pair in the mix.
[P.S. I don’t beleive ETH or BTC are adequate stores of value, the world economies revolve around utilities which is what LUNC/USTC offer]
how can lunc move forward when the community is not allowed to vote to legalise a decission ?
Proposals are not whitelisted and controled by people working for luna.
So as long as lunc validators won’t re enable voting nothing will change at least not how it should be.
As a validator are you in chats with other validators ?
What is their opinion on the voting problem ?
Doesn’t it freak you out that you have no ZERO income as validator because staking is being disabled ?
How long will you pay for the infrastructur without getting any significant reward ?