Proposal to Upgrade to v2.0.0

Has communication gone out to TFL the providers of terra.js and feather.js as well as station, station extension, station mobile and the providers of ledger for terra station. As well as the communication gone out to providers of relayers for LUNC as well as bridges to other eco systems?

1 Like
With all due respect, I am in favor of proceeding with the upgrade; however, there are several issues that I believe should be addressed prior to the approval of this proposal. Firstly, there is a critical concern regarding the functionality of mantlemint when running v2.0.0. Currently, it encounters panics during the startup process. It is of utmost importance that we receive guidance on this matter, as the consequences of it not functioning properly could be catastrophic.

Additionally, we must consider the impact on the existing dApps within our chain. Although the number may be limited, it is crucial that we extend our support to them. Neglecting their needs would send the wrong message to future dApps that may consider joining our platform. Therefore, I would like to inquire about any available guidelines or support mechanisms for these dApps to update seamlessly. Moreover, it would be greatly appreciated if we could obtain a comprehensive document outlining all the changes that will accompany this update. This will help us assess any potential loss of functionality or deprecated features.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

1 Like

This def gonna be fun… I’mma grab mah popcorn. :popcorn:

Good luck boys, if you screw up the chain halt LUNC goes into freefall!

laugh-haha

1 Like

@fragwuerdig Thank you for addressing the issue with Mantlemint. However, it is crucial that we conduct testing before we can pass this proposal. Additionally, we will require some additional time to adequately prepare for the implementation on CEXs . It would be beneficial to provide a concise and user-friendly guide to ensure a seamless integration without encountering any complications on cexs.

2 Likes

To add some detail to these points, @echel0n and I have tested and confirmed that all Layer 2 infrastructure components, with the exception of Mantlemint, are operating correctly, and that all existing Rebel Station functions operate as expected in the v2.0.0 testnet.

For both the TR and Allnodes infrastructure to correctly operate in mainnet, it is imperative that a new Mantlemint release is issued and tested prior to the vote on this proposal being passed.

3 Likes

As I understand, then you plan to upgrade to Luna Classic v2.0.4

On the page at Medium you wrote:

"A key component of the Luna Classic v2.0.4 upgrade scheduled to take place prior to the end of Q1 of 2023 is the Cosmwasm upgrade to v1.1.1. Upgrading Cosmwasm to the most current versions will cause issues with existing Smart Contracts, and will require that they be updated prior to the upgrade. "

That is, after the upgrade 2.0.4, smart contracts will stop working. And you suggest updating them. But what about those who do not have access to manage smart contracts? I represent the mirror protocol community. And we successfully continue to use the mirror functionality. Mirror is a DAO, and we don’t have the resources or ability to accommodate your upgrade now. Your activity will just destroy the mirror protocol and is more like sabotage than good. Do you think is it normal? I think not, and such initiatives will only reduce the price of LUNC.

Thank you for your attention.

2 Likes

Countdown tool for upgrade - StakeBin | Terra Classic

6 Likes

anyway the mirror protocol needs a security review to avoid possible failures and getting hacked.

If the contracts stop working, then no one will do it

1 Like

They cannot pretend to create a dapps and leave it as it is for life without improvements or growth.

One of the core principles of blockchain is immutability. And when the rules hard changes, it’s not a blockchain, it’s an excel spreadsheet. Investors will not go to a such project.

1 Like

Casting my votes after work.

Yes to this one too.

Upgrades and burn changes showing positive movement. Let’s keep up that pace back to 0005 and beyond.

Waiting on EDK for the next move :smiley: feeling good with all this.

1 Like

The chain is immutable and that will not change post-upgrade. It’s the underlying technology supporting that immutability that needs to change to safeguard the first against software bugs and limitations.

Otherwise, we might as well still be using Windows 3.11 :slight_smile:

WARNING: There seems to be a discrepancy between the version of the proposal v2.0.0 which we are currently discussing, and the one that we are currently voting on labeled prop v2.0.1. It’s possible that these two proposals are not identical. I say this because when I tried to access the link to read the official v2.0.1 proposal for voting, it didn’t work. Therefore, please exercise caution and do not vote “yes” for v2.0.1 without carefully reviewing the proposal details and confirming that it’s the same version we are discussing here. This situation is quite suspicious, and we should investigate further to ensure transparency and fairness in the voting process.

It is the same proposal; somehow the DOT at the end of the URL in the proposal made it into the translated URL string. If you remove it you’ll be redirected here.

Thanks for clarifying, godoal. Also, can you please explain why are there 2 different props: v2.0.0 and v2.0.1? it’s important to ensure that we are all reviewing and voting on the correct version to avoid any confusion or misunderstandings.

interdasting

L1 Grift Force at it again. :joy:

3 Likes

Lmao I dunno if you’ve noticed, but our L1 team tried to sneak in blacklisting code to help their friends at Terraport. They don’t give a rat’s ass about immutability or respecting the ethos of crypto.

Oh no, who could have predicted this? Our L1 team being dishonest again? What a surprise! :joy:

lolno

Lmao they’re gonna nuke so many dApps because they’re too lazy to offer a migration/sunset period. Stop defending their ineptitude and lack of anything resembling safe programming practices. The L1 Grift Force is interested only in getting paid, they’re already scrambling for a 6-month contract in Q3. They don’t give a crap about the state of the chain or its health - if they did, they’d show more care and would dedicate time to ensuring the network doesn’t suffer from one upgrade to the next.

2 Likes

Am afraid I can only guess why, so it’s better for @fragwuerdig, @nghuyenthevinh2000 and/or @LuncBurnArmy to answer that question.

(P.S Maybe that WASM cherry patch was that important!)

I agree that it’s crucial to receive a prompt response from them as any delay in the process could lead to neither proposal passing, causing further setbacks. Currently, I have voted NO WITH VETO due to these unresolved issues, but I’m willing to change my vote to YES once this hurdle gets cleared. Let’s hope we receive a clarification soon to move forward with the discussion and voting process.

2 Likes