Signalling Proposal - Reconstruct L1TF and Address security concern

Proposer: Tittan Olson
Author: Tittan Olson


 0. Disclaimers

Tittan Olson is not affiliated with either party mentioned in this proposal, this is coming from an unbiased standpoint.

Tittan Olson does not run or assist in running any validators on any chains.  

In no way is this proposal attacking or slandering any mentioned members. 

This proposal looks to reconstruct the LT1F in such a way that would benefit both the LUNC chain and its community members. As many know Jacob Gadikian(Notional Labs) brought up a serious security issue regarding Allnodes and smaller validators using their services. He was met with backlash and told that it isn’t a problem at all from not only the community, but members of the L1TF. This is not the first time this issue has been brought up, in fact numerous well respected community members have spoken on this in the last few months. The issue at hand can be chain breaking if it is not addressed and fixed, below I will summarize the security issue to the best of my ability.

Security issue
As we all know the first rule in crypto is to keep your seed phrase in a safe and private location no matter what, if that is compromised so are all of your assets. That being said the issue at hand is Allnodes has access to all of its clients seed phrases, which means any validator using their services is now compromised. This means IF Allnodes wanted they could place votes using any validator they have the keys too. Which is a very serious problem not only for the validators themselves, but the LUNC governance as a whole. Allnodes itself already has 17.86% voting power at time of writing, their vote can easily move a proposal in whichever direction they vote. Now add in the validators using their services, that adds up to almost half of the voting power on the LUNC chain. Many may ask why does that matter? To simplify it, if Allnodes shuts down so does the LUNC chain making this a serious problem. Members of the L1TF do not see this as a problem and have made it clear they will not address it which brings us to the solution for the issue.

Security issue fix
As mentioned above, certain members of the L1TF have made it clear they do not see the Allnodes situation as a problem. First part of this proposal looks to reconstruct the L1TF by removing Tobias Andersen(@ZaradarBH) and LuncBurnArmy(@luncburnarmy) from the L1TF, this comes after they publicly dismissed the issue and stated it is not a problem. While at the same time slandering Jacob Gadikian and other valuable community members who have been here since May. Their actions resulted in Jacob and others resigning from the LUNC chain. This however is not the main problem, having disagreements is a part of the business world. The problem is that the elected leaders of the chain are refusing to admit there is an issue and work as a team to fix it which is why this proposal is seeking their removal. This is not only a bad look for the LUNC chain, but it can lead to there no longer being a LUNC chain. An overly centralized chain does not attract new builders nor does it entice already existing builders to continue building on the chain. The second part of this proposal is to fix the Allnodes issue, this has been quoted from a doc made by Jacob Gadikian.

“What should validators do?
If you’re one of the compromised validators, you should remove 100% of the stake that you delegate to yourself.
You’ll be inactive and you will no longer pose a threat to the network
Your delegators will not be slashed
You can then make a new validator and ensure that the priv-validator.json file and seed phrase are kept strictly private
There is no other way
You MUST NOT continue to operate with another provider. The seed phrase and priv-validator.json file are compromised by allnodes, and you MUST recreate your validator using a new provider or you can select option on Allnodes to keep your seed phrase and priv-validator.json file private.
Know that at present, Allnodes can impersonate you entirely.
They can spend as you
They can vote as you
You are fully compromised”

I understand this is not the permanent fix, I will leave that to the developers and those with the proper knowledge to find a solution which the community as a whole agrees on. Look at this proposal as a way to get the ball rolling and put the LUNC community back on track.

By voting YES: You agree the community should seek to reconstruct the L1TF and address the security issues described above.

By voting NO: You disagree with the proposal and want to keep the L1TF as is.

By voting Abstain: You do not have an opinion on this subject

By voting NO WITH VETO: You are very against this proposal and want to keep L1TF as is.

1 Like

There are three proposals in discussion phases currently.

None of them make sense.
Neither does this.

L1TF work was outlined. It’s on track.
None of the members have a gag-order in the contract.

Remaking L1 with new faces with their own disputes does not change it.