Loser
Idiot
That is correct.
There is a specific reason why we left, and that is the continued statement and restatement by Tobias and lack of correction by Ed, who most certainly should know better, that it is okay that validators operate with compromise seed phrases. We believe that it is not.
2 Likes
Learn english please
Youâre right. To solve KC problem, KEY needs to be replaced fundamentally.
The project youâre trying to do will probably affect Cosmos as a whole. But isnât it possible only when all the chains included in Cosmos cooperate with this project?
Itâs going to take a lot of time and money. Maybe thatâs 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. Isnât 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 isnât about respect, and certainly isnât about money. LUNC already nuked once. I just donât want that to happen again.
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 donât like it nope donât 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 theyâve completed a project that hasnât 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 isnât 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 Iâm talking about the L1 TF team. Jacob is also talking about dev team. The development team cannot control the behavior of validators. Itâs the same thing that he can refuse even if I suggest a security solution to Jacob.
Theyâre handling things one by one, and the security issue is a sudden issue. I didnât 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 Jacobâs 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 LUNCâs rules or standards of conduct. Did the L1 actions include any âfradâ, harassment, discrimination, âthftâ, 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.
Jacobâs 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 itâs 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 âBIG VALIDATORSâ 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 Iâm not sure what he thinks. I donât 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 donât 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 youâre 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 âZaradar and Ed said itâs not a problem.â
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 âwe are a decentralized chainâ. We have failed not them. Stop scapegoating the Jl1TF. Validators should not be âvalidatorsâ if they dont know how to run a node. And this âimminent dangerâ 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.
Doesnât 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
