I’d love to hear a comment from Asobs as he has put so much work into getting to the bottom of this.
1 Like
Wowee our very first block chain trial by governance. This should be interesting.
Can’t say I’ve ever heard of one of these happening. Let’s see how this plays out.
3 Likes
I wonder if you have another job. I don’t think anyone gave you a job. How do I come here and damage the chain and rob people? You are really dangerous. I hope other projects realize this and don’t make the mistake of hiring you. @faddat
1 Like
Jeebs, the luncquisition is out in full force this week, really need some mods to get in here.
Since Jacob isn’t addressing this, I think this a joke. It’s like a form of humor that we are not used to. This is the ToxicDAO style of humor and you need to be used to that to understand this.
Most probably they became members, which is why this style of tweeting.
This is at least what I think cause he just released the Notional Testnet to Git 2 days back.
So he couldn’t have gone crazy AND done that at the same time. This is at least what logic indicates.
If any L1 member had written this article, would you defend it in this way?
The only benefit that @faddat and @RabbiJebediah bring to this chain is drama, war, instability and confusion. this is everything.
@RabbiJebediah so called man of god. a useless little crook who insults people and says they deserve it.
1 Like
Name is Thomas, with an h.
I have no information about the root cause for the Terraport issue at this time, and I confess that I am not particularly interested in this all. We run the Terra Classic validator, period.
Perhaps it was gross negligence, perhaps it was a black sheep in their team: while the investigation is ongoing and its conclusions have not been made public, we can’t know.
I don’t have insider information like you apparently do.
My message was simply this : you were calling for a death penalty for TCV because they committed a theft, as clearly shown by the fact that they created this IBC channel with Injective.
You now know they did not, which kind of invalidates the theft claim.
So grossly negligent… maybe. But does gross negligence warrant the same death penalty sanction than theft?
In your initial statement you stated that your motivation was justice.
Justice typically has an array of penalties that match the severity of the infraction.
This being said, if the situation is actually that you have a beef with TCV and would like to see them disappear, by all means go ahead.
I only passed on information that I thought was relevant, you do what you want with it.
(To clarify: we have no financial interest here. While we run the validator, we make no money out of it and merely have the infrastructure costs covered. So TCV going on or down is strictly the same to us.)
A software upgrade to empty the involved wallets is actually not a bad idea 
Probably hellish or even impossible to implement (would need to be done real quick and discreetly, bypassing the governance process and coordinating enough validators to take the culprits by surprise, I guess, which could also set a very bad precedent), but it’s an option that could be worth exploring.
1 Like
That’s right. And I was the one who raised a hue and cry about what Z was writing on Twitter. I went and posted his tweet here too.
So you are absolutely correct.
The L1 team has, in general, caused a lot of damage to our reputation and respect in the coin market. Prices crashed cause of the infighting and I talked about this on Twitter and here as well. That the infighting has to stop.
If the community criticizes something, then the devs and the dev teams should take that constructively as feedback. The L1 Team did not do that last time even after repeated attempts from the community at trying to make them understand where they are going wrong.
At this current point of time, AllNodes has voted against the wishes of the community, when the entire community said that we should scrutinize the L1 Team before they begin working on L1 development again. But AllNodes won’t listen. They probably want development to continue on the chain without any hiccups, but what the validators who are voting on the props fail to understand is that, if we pass anything in its original form, then we can’t go back and question the team for work that wasn’t completed. Cause they never mentioned that they are in any form of contract to complete the work. In spite of this unclear contract of work with the community, the community and validators majorly think that it is better to fund something than to fund nothing.
1 Like
I’m glad we agree on some issues. jakob did not contribute anything during his tenure, he did not write any code. Jacob didn’t do his job but wrote github articles. Jacob was fired from the team and attacked the Verifiers. A ridiculous fud ensued for 2 weeks. We lost the support of binance after a bid passed by voting, the developers took extra effort to solve it. Despite everything, they were able to do most of the work and the most important parts of it. Probably no other team could have been as efficient despite so many problems. When we lost Binance support, Rabbi and his team said we don’t need binance. You sided with these men in the same place. You’ve wasted the Zaradar and now we’re looking for a replacement.Now they are attacking @fragwuerdig , I can’t figure out what kind of nonsense this is In short, I don’t want to distract the subject too much, but we wouldn’t be where we are without this team.
2 Likes
In fact, there appears to be a native method in the Cosmos SDK to block the rogue wallets that could be implemented in such cases, off governance. Could save the situation or at least reduce the impact if validators coordinate quickly enough:
https: //github. com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/x/bank/module.go#L229
(extra spaces as agora doesn’t allow me to include links)
Seems to prevent the concerned wallets from doing any operation - they can’t even get staking rewards.
Once blocked, there would be plenty of time to determine the next steps.
All credits to Galadrin from Cros’ Nest for pointing this out! 
2 Likes
Thanks a lot for this information.
Womp womp
LUNC uses 42
No that thing
My bad you’re right, lunc hasn’t been upgraded for quite some time indeed…
1 Like
It’s okay. It’s my turn to be wrong. It’s 44 still no that thing
2 Likes
Sprinkle some holy water on it.
1 Like
Here you go:
TCV validator has 0% commission rate. How can I own a share of 0% - huh? To answer your question: Because I don’t care about profit. I am in for the people and the team. If I look at your social skills and how you behave publicly then it’s very much clear to me that you struggle to understand this.
It’s an important fact in the overall picture.
Terraport is closed source. I had NO FUCKING ACCESS to the source code, buddy. You understand the concept of closed source? Plus: My name was not on the project.
You asked me to reply/answer. Everything else you said in your reply were further accusations and claims without justification/proof. I don’t even bother to reply to them, because I said all I had to say 'bout them.
2 Likes
That only applys for module accounts. Has something to do that the Blockchain can configure them in certain ways. This method does not apply to normal accounts.
2 Likes
Very good point. I think there’s also a new way to filter addresses but you’re correct about the module account sir
2 Likes
No swearing please. I mean, you can, but it’s not great.
Why is your team, TCV, releasing closed source contracts?
Why did you speak in support of a closed source contract?
That is highly unwise.
5 Likes