Signalling Proposal - Create an Alternative L1 Team ran by Notional Labs

Learn english please

@faddat

You’re right. To solve KC problem, KEY needs to be replaced fundamentally.

The project you’re trying to do will probably affect Cosmos as a whole. But isn’t it possible only when all the chains included in Cosmos cooperate with this project?

It’s going to take a lot of time and money. Maybe that’s why this project was stopped 3 years ago.

I looked at HVP from a different perspective.

If the Nakamoto coefficient is increased to more than 10 and the Node Provider Company does hold a 30% or less stake, there is no security issue due to KC.

This is true for any chain that has adopted POS beyond the Cosmos ecosystem. Even the most valuable Ethereum has not solved this problem.

But imagine what happens if the LUNC chain solves that problem.

Ethereum, Solana and all other chains will adopt our ideas. We will solve common problems in the cryptocurrency industry and It become the standard of industry.

Everyone will respect you. Isn’t this more attractive?

It is attractive, but it is not fast enough.

People already respect the research work that I do.

FYI, Tobias has denied that high votepower is a problem. Ed Kim has refused to let delegators know the simple truth:

Redelegation solves this problem, 100%.

This isn’t about respect, and certainly isn’t about money. LUNC already nuked once. I just don’t want that to happen again.

@faddat

They must have been aware of the problem, too.

But he would have hoped to do things behind the scenes so as not to panic the public.

Even if scientists find out that the Earth will be destroyed next year, they may not reveal it to the public. Because they know the fear of a crowd that has lost control.

In fact, Ed has shown interest in my proposal and may be discussing technical issues with the team.

Anyway, I respect your project. If it can be done, it will have a good effect on the entire Cosmos chain.

1 Like

A promising idea. The most attractive aspect of this proposal in my opinion is how it transforms contention into constructive competition. Perhaps our current L1TF has become too comfortable being the only shop in town so to speak. Providing an alternative could bring out the best in everyone.

2 Likes

Tobias dangerously misinformed about a critical security situation.

He then went on to lie about me and I just don’t like it nope don’t like it at all. He crafted a narrative where we were to blame for addressing all nodes problems directly.

I have never made personal attacks on Tobias, I simply think that he is dangerously incorrect.

I will never accept that type of behavior in a community I am working with.

We would likely leave any chain where such conditions exist, because the risk is too high. Might be a good idea to get a gov prop going, removing Tobias and luncburnarmy.

I know that PFC and I left because we felt that we would be harmed-- we would need to approve Tobias actions, and we simply do not approve

1 Like

No no no man. No more behind the scenes in stuff like this. This has been going on since they reintroduced minting. This is exactly the core of the problem.

Devs have no mandate over the governance and cant be encouraged to plot behind our backs!

Jacob was 100% right to bring it out in public. This affects 100% of LUNC Community and we need full awareness of this. Prior to this there was NONE.

Validators knew this was an issue, but still kept using allnodes. They advertised to stakers using this type of arguments:

By staking with us you are making the chain more safe because we will be more decentralised, vp will be more evenly distributed and so on.

Turns out this was largely not true because their VP and Uptime is effectively controlled by a 3rd party! So it is not safer than if all of their delegators simply staked directly with allnodes.

Without this being public knowledge, the delegators would have still been unawere this was a false advertisement.

If they knew about this issue before, possibly they would have delegated to other independent nodes.

The above shows the effects of sweeping issues under the carpet - which we have seen by validators and devs for a while.

Everyone in the Community should welcome the fact that it came out to light and we should work together to fix it - not denying it.

1 Like

Can you trust an L1 core dev team that is buzzing around as if they’ve completed a project that hasn’t even been technically validated to be implemented? I remember there are some people in our community who have been witch-hunted by the community for acting like that.

And isn’t the current L1 development team formed in December? Why should a team that is only a month old take on all the problems of the last 6 months? I remember the community supported TR before that.

As you say, this is a matter for validators. And I’m talking about the L1 TF team. Jacob is also talking about dev team. The development team cannot control the behavior of validators. It’s the same thing that he can refuse even if I suggest a security solution to Jacob.

They’re handling things one by one, and the security issue is a sudden issue. I didn’t have the time to review the solution and make the best choice.

As the community has high expectations for them, they needs to be careful before announcing any plans. Joke is only allowed on Twitter influencer.

3 Likes

So @Zaradar being lured to answer to Jacob’s twitter show is the entire L1 task Force . You are misrepresenting facts. Stop it. This extract can be viewed as slander. What do you want, @ek826 to fall into your twitter trap?. He didnt. So try convincing someone else.about this nonsense notion of misconduct. This extract alone tells the whole story behind the plot. I will vote NO with veto if this proposal is sent to be voted on. Every month there is someone trying to mess with the LUNC community.

By saying misconduct are you referring to any behavior that is unethical, inappropriate, or violates LUNC’s rules or standards of conduct. Did the L1 actions include any “frad”, harassment, discrimination, “thft”, or abuse of power. Misconduct can result in consequences such as disciplinary action, termination of employment, or even legal penalties of which in my opinion Jacob is guilty of or even the authors of this proposal are guilty of.

Jacob’s action to run to twitter was inappropriate and may potentially have done some harm to LUNC. His actions show his character and I must say it’s not a nice one and I would never collaborate with anyone displaying this attitude. So if you want to speak about misconduct, point your finger in the right direction.

The L1TF team does not control how delegates stake or how validators want their nodes to be run. That is governance which does not fall under the authority of the L1TF.

On another note: 11316 | Text proposal

Voting

Cease payments to Jacob Gadikian is coming to an end and the “BIG VALIDATORS” may save him. What an irony.

4 Likes

I dont agree one one thing. Tobias did exactly what you said - he excersised control over the affected validators by realising a statement that there is no problem. That directly influenced them to do nothing.

As an effect, only 2 validators that I know of decided to switch their hosting - HCC and Toxic.

If it was not for Tobias, the rest would have followed suit.

Tobias could be a repulsion to work outside of work they planned and paid for. Everyone has different tendencies, so I’m not sure what he thinks. I don’t want to criticize people recklessly. Jacob as well.

However, the community thinks Ed Kim is the one who leads the L1 TF team, so I think it is right to give time to what the team will finally decide.

Or we could set up a separate security specialist development team to discuss this.But I don’t know who will lead the team.

3 Likes

The cease payments prop will rightfully get vetoed as it is a proposal put up by members of the Oversiight Comitee which is direct conflict of interest. They should recuse themselves from this process as their keys were held by allnodes too. Imo Trev is the only person there who would be able to mediate this situation - which was not done to date.

They need to go back to the point where Jacob raised the issue with voting power - and find agreeable plan to move forward. This needs to be put for governance for approval.

Do you have any proof for that or is this just an assumption of yours? Afaik no members of the COC have been involved in setting up the proposal you’re referring to. Refrain from this sort of statements unless you have proof for it

3 Likes

One of the main points of controversy is Zaradar and Ed making public statements that the Allnodes situation is not a problem. While the L1TF cannot control how delegators stake, they can and do influence delegations because the community looks to them for leadership. Gadikian has raised valid concerns about the integrity of our blockchain but a significant portion of the community is essentially dismissing the danger because “Zaradar and Ed said it’s not a problem.”

Since when is not your keys, not your coins not a problem?

1 Like

Because your validator is compromised

We passed a proposal for them to BUILD the chain. The community has failed to elect a centralized team to handle issues like this because “we are a decentralized chain”. We have failed not them. Stop scapegoating the Jl1TF. Validators should not be “validators” if they dont know how to run a node. And this “imminent danger” to the chain is just click baiting. Delegates if they vote can 100% eliminate the risk that Jacob and some of you are ranting about.

Doesn’t the implementation of the PoS LUNC consensus mechanism state that delegates can override validators voting power? So all delegates have to do is vote on proposals.

2 Likes

I stand corrected. It is the PR team of the L1 Task Force who are responsible for this proposal which can be proven by blockchain transactions.

Anyhow, this proposal came out from the L1TF which is also confirmed by the screenshots of private conversations provided by Gadikian which show him being threatend by a removal prop by Zaradar.

This is enough of a proof that there were personal reasons being put before the LUNC Community interests involved in Jacobs removal attempt.

Trace

  • Proposal 11316 was proposed by the same wallet as proposal 111111.
  • 11111 was signed by Matts Market - member of the Lunc Live Validator.
  • Other members of this validator include Mr.Diamondhandz and Demonmonkey - person appointed to be a PR for L1TF
  • LUNC Live Validator was named as one of the compromised validators by Jacob. It was in their interest to oust Jacob from the team.
  • the threat of removal coming from Zaradar shows clearly that other members apart from Jacob were working together and protected each others self-interest. In this case they were protecting the delegations to Lunc Live and other compromised validators AT THE COST OF LUNC BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY.
  • Currently Matt is being nominated to replace PFC as a member of the Oversight Commitee

image-7


BIG NO WITH VETO from me!

3 Likes

The L1TF chose to take sides regarding the Allnodes problem on social media and that is why we are having this debate. To say they are “just builders” ignores their ability to shape public opinion as community leaders.

It would be one thing if the L1TF issued a neutral statement along the lines of “it is up to the community to decide whether they think Allnodes poses a risk.” Instead they chose to take sides and trigger this debate.

Those of us who see the danger posed by Allnodes being a central point of failure and are concerned about Terra Classic being isolated from the rest of the cosmos ecosystem are forced to question the L1TF’s judgement because of they chose to take a partisan position on this issue.

@Mpowski
So you’re saying that (and as is about to be also proven via this post) that it turns out that it is members of the PR team of the L1 Task Force (which is even worse then it being the Oversight Committee) who are responsible for the proposal to cease payments to Jacob Gadikian which can be proven by blockchain transactions.

As we know, there’s already screenshots of private conversations that Gadikian provided showing him being threatened via a removal proposal by Zaradar, and now there is enough proof that exists on the blockchain to show that personal reasons were being put before the LUNC Community’s best interests in trying to oust Jacob from the community.

But for fun, let’s follow the breadcrumb trail with me.

  • Proposal 11316 is the proposal intended to cease payments to Jacob Gadikian. You can see that proposal here: Station
  • Proposal 11111 is the proposal that repealed Proposal 10983. You can see that proposal here: Station
  • Chain analysis has revealed that the proposer of Proposal 11316 and Proposal 11111 came from the same wallet address of terra155pp4gsf9prg7vu3vv3faq5rfd96439nmawwut. You can see that wallet in more detail here: Terra Finder
  • Here is the wallet’s SubmitProposal Transaction for Proposal 11111: Terra Finder
  • Here is the wallet’s SubmitProposal Transaction for Proposal 11316: Terra Finder
  • As you said Powski, Proposal 11316 was proposed by the same wallet that proposed Proposal 11111.
  • Proposal 11111 was publicly signed by Matts Market, who is a member of the LUNC LIVE validator (a validator that is publicly known to be compromised due to being hosted by Allnodes). You can see Mr.DiamondHandz asking Allnodes to send their validator seed phrase to Matts Market in this tweet here: https://twitter.com/MrDiamondhandz1/status/1599567141505597440
  • Seems very coincidental that Matts Market would publicly sign their name on Proposal 11111, yet not put their name on Proposal 11316, instead saying that it’s proposed by “The coalition of the LUNC Community and validators”. A typo, I’m sure.
  • Oh look! Another coincidence! Matts Market has also posted in this very Signalling Proposal thread saying “No with veto”! Signalling Proposal - Create an Alternative L1 Team ran by Notional Labs - #31 by MattsMarket
  • What a bunch of coincidences that is! Well, at least he isn’t a part of the L1 JTF Oversight Committee or is trying to join it! Oh… Wait… https://twitter.com/MarktMatts/status/1616123132938702848
  • Well it’s just Matts Market only, right? Oh wait DemonMonkey is part of LUNC LIVE too! What a coincidence! Hey isn’t he handling PR for the L1 JTF and also a Compliance Officer for TGF…? https://twitter.com/ZaradarBH/status/1611376277344190465
  • Surely a compromised validator that has publicly admitted to being compromised by Allnodes and has many members of their organization deeply intertwined within the L1 JTF and TGF would have no incentive to put forth a proposal as a “coalition of the LUNC community and validators” that seeks to oust the very person that exposed them from their team, would they? What incentives could they possibly have to be doing that?

The blockchain doesn’t lie. Only people do.

2 Likes