Parameter Change Proposal: MaxContractSize

If no unfavorable abnormalities will result by this parameter change, then i wouldn’t hesitate in conveying my YES vote

If this parameter change doesn’t affect the eco system negatively then I’m all for welcoming new projects in and helping boost the volume .

1 Like

Poker is good. You will use USTC or LUNC deposits? Or USTC+LUNC?

Have someone technical check it out. If it’s not a problem then YES. But until then, NO.


This will be a yes vote provided there are no technical considerations.

Please check this before thaking any decisions.

I would vote NO until someone from the L1TF confirms this. we normal users hv no idea and also the implications for technical prop. better be safe than sorry.

p/s - read the link Vegas shared above as well

1 Like

According to the link by Vegas, the change was rejected previously, with this reason given by Jared. Increasing node operating costs? I mentioned earlier about needing technical advice and LBA said this change “should not be an issue…” But I require clear expert advice of the ramifications of this change to inform my decision.


As I said before :person_shrugging:t2: They won’t listen. I don’t need that much experience with L1 development to see what is written in a technical documentation in clear English.

1 Like

Eventually the parameter change could be first run on testnet and evaluate consequences? Higher operating costs for validators is a liability as many of us validators operate at loss, we cant afford to bleed out and loose validators.


I can give you an alternative suggestion to how you can run your large contracts without any issues:

Instantiate your contracts on EVM and using Evmos you can interact with any blockchain in Cosmos to interact with the contract hosted on EVM, and not Cosmos.

I dunno whether Terra Luna Classic has a channelId yet since the L1 Team isn’t answering that question clearly about whether they have any channels open or a Tendermint client is running or not to provide IBC connections. I have to assume that it is not the case and that it might be required to run a Tendermint client in order to do that.

If you have the devs and the server resources then you can run your own copy of the Tendermint client with connections that might work with Evmos, but this is something that we need to try and check. Can’t say for sure unless we try it in code.

1 Like

This has already been sent for voting?

What I do not understand is why is this done again and again that proposals are being sent for voting without asking the development team or getting any confirmation from them.

If you have any confirmation, why don’t you share that here and then send it for voting?

We already mentioned here repeatedly that changing the max contract size might fail the nodes working right now. On top of that, TFL is changing its endpoints currently.

Trying to pass proposals like these gives our community a bad reputation among our largest supporters - the exchanges. ANY parameter change should be consulted with the L1 team before putting it for voting.

1 Like

You are commenting on a completely technical topic. I don’t need to know who you are since it is understandable you are not a blockchain dev.

You have no idea about what kinda di[sas]ter this change may cause if it is passed without prior approval.

Literally, the entire blockchain can stop working.

P.S. I thought a lot about how I can put this in a better way but I couldn’t. I apologize for that.

What’s the HURRY?

Can you show us the contract?

Has a SECURITY CHECK been done on this new contract you haven’t deployed yet?

Please reply in PRECISE technical terms.

Tell me one more thing - is this application being developed and maintained by TCV? The same TCV?


That does tell me that you are commenting on tech you do not actually understand.

1 Like

The only reason you could be supporting this is if you are a sca(ammer yourself and you want the chain to stop working. You got some Terra stuck on the blockchain Tonu? :sunglasses: I assure you, it ain’t gonna be that easy anymore. People like you have made this a shi*show of governance.

Tinfoil alert, Arubasu.

Have a look at your rate of posting.
Then look at the contents you produce:

Unsubstantiated claims, straight up lies and copious amounts of nonsense are what we expect to see.

Now, do explain how param change proposal as it is now would halt the chain?

1 Like

Funny that you ask, when it is clearly written over here. It has already been tested once. And if Jared is saying their servers won’t work, it won’t work. Period.

If I am wrong, why doesn’t the author of this proposal come here and show us the contract and prove me wrong? Also, show us that you have made this change on a testnet, and that it is working. I do not think you know that you can spin up a testnet on your own computer.

If you cannot show the contract, then I am not wrong and the author of this document has exactly 24 hours before I report this as a sc(am proposal.

You have a problem with the fact that I am an active and vigilant member of the community?

The content that I have produced is for the good of the community, not to make any particular person in the community feel good.

I am saying it again, I have already contacted them on Twitter and commented publicly on their post to come and reply to my comment here, and yet they have not done so. Go and tell them to come here and show us the contract. Do some work for the community.


So, as I said - changing the contract size can bring on extra gas fee costs for those who utilize it.

What exactly is “chain halting” about it?

You can report it in silence

One does not exclude or include the other. Even children can understand as much, why not you?
You can report in silence as well.

Most of the validators currently do not run full nodes. They run a reduced copy of the full node because of resource restrictions on their servers. They need to repeatedly restart the terrad instance on their servers because it is a non-optimized and compressed build.

If you increase the max contract size then most of the validators will not be able to run this increased contract size resulting in a memory overflow error (the blue screen that you see on Windows sometimes and the computer restarts automatically).

The number of validators on the chain is currently below 130 which means that if more validators leave or get shut down for whatever reason, the blocks will not reach consensus and the transactions will not take place.

What is being suggested here is extremely memory intensive and the contract size should not have been this large to begin with. The max size has been set depending upon the contracts which currently exist on the blockchain. Logic tells us that if other contracts are executing perfectly fine without increasing the contract size, what extra does this contract have in it that the contract size is larger than the max contract size?

Yes, it’s a game and the contract size may be large. If that is the case then I have already suggested how you can run this from EVM without affecting our chain. This is the reason Evmos was made for the Cosmos ecosystem.


Please @Channel_TerraPoker can you reply to this? And was any tests done ? Some ppl showed some concerns is for everyone interest to have them adressed.tks