20% is too much…max 5% …
You have a valid point. Currently Orion Money has 14% voting power, while in second SmartStake has 5%. So based on only that, what you are saying could be possible. That being said, There has to be a level of trust between delegators and validators that their voting power will be used in the best interest of the community. I feel Orion Money has earned that community trust. They use their telegram to post a poll for their delegators and they vote based on the outcome of that poll. That speaks volumes about their reputation.
I am not trying to discredit you here but I question whether your decision was based on your own interests or that of the community’s
I can only speak for myself in saying I am still in favor of passing this proposal knowing the voting power of Orion Money and feel they would prevent an attack rather than initiate one based on community trust.
This is just text proposal? So this is not gonna be implemented, we all know do kwon jajajajaja
I’m totally agree with you. Does BTC.secure decided to voted no with veto because community agreement or personal agreement???
Please find the code on the proposal
Hi @KonstantinB2S ,
I would like to ask that you reconsider (BTC.Secure can change their vote while the proposal is open if desired)…
The whole idea of proof-of-stake is that those who have the greatest stake have the least likely chance of sabotaging a network, since it would sabotage their very stake in the governance and network. Proof of stake requires that a person who stakes is granted the rights that come with that stake (if that is governance, then governance; if that is staking rewards, then staking rewards, if that is consensus voting, then that is consensus voting). Tendermint, which is a building block that Terra is built upon, as well as blockchain in general, are designed to minimize attacks against Byzantine fault tolerance (BFT).
What you have mentioned in your reasons for voting against can just as easily have happened when LUNA “classic” was trading at $100 (just as easily as it could at today’s prices) - this is because they will own the same percentage as they would have in regards to the price of the token and in regards to the equity of the project and its market cap, had the price of the token been different. In other words, this aspect is always there regardless of the price of the token, or staking in particular. Proof-of-stake’s answer to this issue is to protect stake through purchasing more LUNA “classic” as a primary aspect, and to point out that those with the greatest stake have the most to lose in sabotaging their own stake in either governance or the network. An attack like this, although possible, is not probable. By “attack” I mean a proof-of-stake attack, that is someone who specifically attempts to violate the blockchain for malicious monetary gain. Most of what I have heard though is not in the “attack” category. When asked to define what is mean by attack, what usually is stated, and is being meant, is control.
In the end, this type of attack is always present, and is what theorists try to mitigate against. Blockchain is specifically designed to minimize this. It is just not a probable (and in my mind, credible) case of attack (and by attack I mean it the way that proof-of-stake encapsulates it, attacking the validation of a block itself). The control issue is not an attack, this is the way securities work, whether a governance coin, or stock - when you give governance potential, you must be able to allow that governance to function as it is stated. There are no classes of governance stated in the https://classic-docs.terra.money/ .
If you would like to read an interaction that happened yesterday, and today, between developers associated with Terra Rebels (which includes response from two developers that have blockchain as well as fintech backgrounds, @Zaradar and @raider7019), and the community on that server, please feel free to visit these links (they are links to the discussion point starts and restart points):
- Begining of discussion
- Discussion Picks Up Again and Continues
- Before and After this Portion
- Today’s Discussion
Again, I ask that you may reconsider. However, I do respect your decision to vote what you believe is best for the community.
I hope that you have a great day
Thank you for your opinion with helpful links.
We will research this proposal and the consequences of its adoption once again, as we really do not want to postpone the restart of staking.
shouldnt be possible to have more then 20% on any validator
@KonstantinB2S To add, this was allready starting to happen back then. The signs of larger validator nodes haveing a larger percentage of the vote already happened. So much so that there were attempts by the smaller validators to try to change the system.
Also once staking is enabled, there will be nothing to prevent us from having it tweeked to make the system better, in fact we need it enabled to do this. All it will take is to vote on a new proposal.
At first I honestly was not understanding that this was no more an issue now than it’s ever been and even being against it opening fully. But after speaking more in depth, I see that it is much safer than I thought and @aeuser999 is correct. Not saying it can’t happen just not any more likley.
@Deathstar_Daddy has a very valid point, i say vote yes on this proposal and worry about attacks later. If it needs to be changed then a new proposal is the perfect start to fixing the problem. Plus with new validators being locked out for 60 days, we shouldnt have much to worry about. This can be fixed as quickly as 7 days.
you do realize once you lose gov, its over.
The deciding factor in a PoS network security is not the details of its rules, but rather the consistent influx of capital. In another word market liquidity.
You can have the best rules in the world. But without continuous liquidity it meant nothing. A network attack is bound to take place when you have a net outflow of capital, which is the exact situation LUNC is in right now, a PoS network without the right to staking, only the choice to leave. Would you consider the current LUNC network secure when Orion.Money, a single validator is holding 13.94% voting power? While the next biggest voting power is only 4.90%. The voting power for Orion.Money will only be on the uptrend as we continue to block staking, and previous participants leaving the network as the incentives to stay diminishes each day.
Now back to the worries of someone holding 2/3 voting power or a 51% attack as most people likes to call it. Let’s entertain such possibility.
To carry out a successful network take over, and assuming there is malice for acquiring such position, two conditions must be maintained at all times:
a) The LUNC tokens under your direct control represents a meaningful percentage of the total LUNC tokens staked.
b) In the process of doing whatever you intended to do, the influx of capital into staking does not change the condition above.
Now, let’s say by some miracle some attacker(s) was able to achieve all of the above. Then the attacker would be at risk of the following road blocks / consequences: a) emergency chain halt (its not like we haven’t done it before…), b) retail investors d.umping everything on the open market off chain, c) a community backed hard fork with whatever penalties imposed upon the attacker(s). Therefore for the attacker(s), they stand to lose everything and nothing to gain from a network attack. The key point to remember is. The assessment on the likelihood of a catastrophic event created by human, should not be solely base on the difficulty of carrying out such event, but rather prioritize first the consideration for incentives. Robbery is not easy at all but people still do it. Because it is profitable. It is against human nature to not seek maximum incentives. And the incentive right now to control / destroy a d.ying chain is little to none.
Also, what if there is no proof of malice and some popular validator(s) acquired 2/3 voting power. Then I would say in that case the system is functioning exactly the way it was designed to do. We have to respect the rules of the game. You cannot seriously expect to only retain the benefits of a system but none of its side effects. A perfect system simply does not exit. What we ought to strive for is the next best alternative. Re-enable staking / delegation is exactly that. It is a democratic / decentralized system, not without its flaws, but what is the other alternative then? Judging by the reality we are in, it is dictatorship on a d.ying chain because newcomers are forbidden to participate. It couldn’t get any worse than this.
Lastly. I would like to point out that a 20% cap on validator voting power is a really really bad idea. Or any cap at all for that matter. Because a) it destroys the incentive for validators to continuously improve. b) If an attacker is determined, what stops him from setting up multiple validators? At the end of the day. We are back to my opening thesis. In the long run, the only thing protecting a network is market liquidity. For the collective interest, any restriction on market liquidity should have never been imposed, such as the disabling of LUNC staking. But what’s done is done. We are only asking to move forward. Return the rightful choice of staking and delegation back to all of the LUNC holders. Allow people to make their own choices freely without intervention, and face the consequences or receive benefits accordingly. Let’s operate a decentralized blockchain as advertised, not by backdoor deals between the powerful few.
As we noted earlier, we support the restart of staking in Terra Classic.
We thank all the participants of the discussion for their useful opinions.
Once again, we weighed the pros and cons, and received feedback from the community.
We believe that limiting the voting power of the validators can be put to the vote in a separate proposal, since within 60 days only validators who are least likely to attack the network in any way due to the cheapness of such an attack immediately after the update will be in the active set.
Such an attack for a validator from the current set does not make much sense, so we can enable staking for the current set of validators without significant risks.
BTC.Secure has changed its vote to Yes.
And we will continue to maintain a reliable infrastructure in Terra Classic, as before, having started validating Terra Classic 3.5 years ago from the genesis.
Thanks for right choise. Hope proposal will pass ASAP
@KonstantinB2S Good decision. Thank you!
So, in a nutshell, we are all a bunch of losers except for you, the greatest mind the crypto world has ever witnessed.
Haters will hate.
Good decision. Terra classic need to go forward.
Do you have an idea that 2.1T of lunc in wallet this address " terra18vnrzlzm2c4xfsx382pj2xndqtt00rvhu24sqe " belongs to whom?
Is it belongs to binance or their users?
And if all this coin goes to some validator what gonna happen?
If this was one holder, Then Binance already has an issue trading LUNC as they do not have any LUNC liquidity in their system.
So makes more sense that this is their main wallet consisting of all their customers holdings. Also we already know that’s the case as all their transactions are OFF chain. Meaning they are not done via on chain wallets. That’s how they get their transaction fees and we don’t currently get any tax from trades on Binance or any other exchange.
Plus you remember that tidbit of news from Coinbase not too long ago regarding if they ever went bankrupt you’re holdings are not technically in your wallet so they could be at risk for loss.
Plus if, IF, they did somehow move all these tokens to Staking, it’s an on chain transaction and that would means 20+ Billion tokens get burned.
I see, Thank you for your answer.
ในวันที่ ส. 18 มิ.ย. 2022 23:07 น. Deathstar Daddy via Terra Research Forum <[email protected]> เขียนว่า: