Anyone from this group can be selected to form/belong to another group.
These are the major concerns as they relate to your team and the L1 team working on the Lunc chain.
Fragmentation: If different L1 teams are working on different aspects of the blockchain, it can lead to fragmentation and a lack of cohesion in the network. This can make it more difficult for users to navigate the network and could limit adoption.
Interoperability issues: If different L1 teams are using different standards and protocols, it can create interoperability issues between different parts of the network. This could lead to inefficiencies and limitations in the functionality of the blockchain.
Security concerns: With multiple L1 teams working on the same blockchain, there is a risk of security vulnerabilities and potential attacks. If the teams do not collaborate effectively, it can be difficult to ensure that the network is secure.
Governance challenges: With multiple teams working on the same blockchain, it can be challenging to establish effective governance structures that allow for efficient decision-making and conflict resolution. This can lead to disagreements and delays in the development process
You’re being very unprofessional and disrespectful. I’m not furthering any more discussion with you after this post.
We’re all busy people with everyday lives, we can’t all see everything or look into everything before replying to posts - no humiliation meant.
If you believe that good for you.
Only your GitHub account comes up, and it doesn’t even matter. Good for you, I hope they work in your favor and work out for you. I’ve tried that and they weren’t as profitable as I had hoped.
There’s nothing wrong with looking at your posts in our proposals and going off of that. I don’t know why you think anyone should research every poster that posts. There were tons of posts in all of our props. It would take a lot of time to research every poster and read every post and proposal they’ve made.
This is a weird situation cause one part of my brain says that you guys are not real and this prop isn’t real, and the other part of my brain knows that you are a validator.
But your being a validator is not proof enough for your coding skills since that will be evident from the work you are doing. And this applies not just for you, it applies for the other devs as well.
We will know that only when we see some code.
Also, Z does have a point when he says that there is a definite conflict of interest when a validator is also indulging in development, since validators, delegators and developers should be separate teams to not let power get concentrated in one place.
Well then, I think you should begin with at least clicking on my profile photo and checking the section called Topics. You will get to know.
Can you point to where this “Triangle” has been defined so we can read up more on it? Even if we were to use the model of the LUNC Triangle as you describe, TGF still plays a role within that, and Allnodes being a part of TGF while also being a validator still creates a conflict of interest as identified, it’s just across a different vector that’s not development related - instead it’s governance related, which can be used to impact development. So it still ends up being an issue.
As for your specific concerns.
Fragmentation: There is no part of this statement that is true. It’s a hypothetical that doesn’t have any foundation in reality with how open source software and collaboration on the blockchain ends up working, and the front-end facing user sees none of the complexity in their day to day usage of the blockchain.
Interopability Issues: Governance solves this and makes it a complete non-issue by default. Since governance decides what software is used, governance will naturally also have a hand in what standards and protocols are used in the codebase, just like this proposal is doing right now. Cosmos SDK is already pretty standardized as is too, so I don’t see how this is seen as a potential issue.
Security Concerns: Network security is an ever present risk that always needs to be mitigated. It’s better to have more eyes scrutinizing the code then less eyes. What matters is the diff between the last valid release commit hash that the chain had, and the new release commit hash that has been proposed by governance for the software upgrade (and reviewed by developers, validators, and the wider community).
Governance Challenges: We just went through that exact scenario you’ve described quite successfully, I’d say. Now we’re going through the other scenario where we are looking at governance for having multiple teams working on completely different parts of the chain, and in my opinion, that is achievable.
I trust the team that has proven the work like the current L1TF, Doxxing is a vector of trust especially if you are asking for money, we have no idea who you are, who your team is, are they actually people or just multiple accounts from the same person, these are all answers the community needs, you refuse to do AMA’s with the community and you make false allegations with no evidence, you are aligned with bad actors as shown in the picture linked, and again i do not trust you or your team at all 3 members of your team all magically joined agora same minute of the same day and posted identical work histories with minor tweaks, there also is a conflict of interest as you are a validator as well. again No with Veto
You are implying that if the L1 team does not bring parity before the end of Q2, that your work will not be finished, So the question is; why the rush?
You are correct that in some cases, having multiple L1 teams working on the same blockchain may not necessarily lead to fragmentation. In this case the teams will not collaborate effectively and shared the same vision for the network.It is abundantly clear that your team and the L1 team will not effectively coordinate their efforts. In this case, the different teams may develop incompatible protocols or standards, Fragmentation is still a potential issue that should be considered and managed as part of the development process.
It is important to note that governance is not a silver bullet solution for all interoperability issues that may arise when multiple L1 teams work on the same blockchain. While governance can help establish standards and protocols, there may still be technical challenges to achieving interoperability between different parts of the network.
While governance can play an important role in promoting interoperability and reducing the potential for issues related to different teams using incompatible protocols, it is not a complete solution to all technical challenges related to interoperability in a blockchain network. Careful technical planning and implementation are also necessary to achieve effective interoperability.
How can you refute that multiple L1 teams working on the same blockchain may not introduce new security risks if the teams are not effectively coordinated or if there are differences in implementation that could create potential vulnerabilities. The L1 team in Q1 had the @faddat fiasco. Now we have two teams that will not be properly coordinated.
What will happen when your team or the L1 team diametrically opposed each other? We go right back to conflict resolution.
So you trust the L1TF because they did work in Q1, and that’s completely fair; but answer me this. How would you feel if you found out they were billing for items in Q2 that were implemented in Q1?
Your scrutiny is completely fine. But you can’t expect us to take on the risk of doxxing when other paid members of the community are undoxxed and there’s been no issues there; nor can you expect developers to take on real life risks (like how @notjoshc expressed his concerns about being swatted) because of how this community behaves.
We’ve already been subjected to witch hunts because of the narratives that have been spread about us by influencers without those influencers even talking to us, and we’re not even doxxed! How much worse would things be for the team if they were doxxed?
This community doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being the kindest community in the crypto space, and I think that’s something the community needs to introspect on. You’re focusing a lot on the fact that we aren’t doxxed without taking a moment to ask yourself why we’ve chosen to remain un-doxxed. And it is our choice. Doxxing is not something you can force on us.
Feel free to ask any questions in there, and we’re happy to do text based AMAs anywhere, but this media hype cycle we’re in as a community has gotten so out of control and toxic with it’s gossiping and rumour mill and reactionary lashing back and forth with each other that very little tangible work is being done, and people aren’t going to buy into a chain in the next bullrun that has nothing going for it but drama.
Please provide proof of me having done that.
Yeah I saw a bunch of you peddling that picture around on Twitter today as if it was some big smoking gun - it isn’t. First off, the tweet in that picture I did isn’t exactly something I’ve tried to hide either. If I was trying to hide it I could have deleted it, but guess what - I didn’t. Wonder why that is? Anyways here’s the tweet if you’d like to read it: https://twitter.com/OhhBilboBaggins/status/1620983373144657922
As for the second image, again that’s also been taken out of context and is just me in the LUNC Academy server talking about how I’ve talked with Rabbi about how a portion of commissions should be burned because, and this may surprise you, but Rabbi’s talked to pretty much everyone in this community, myself included; and we are trying to come up with mechanisms to help make the chain more financially sustainable for all validators while also reducing the LUNC supply.
This is also not true, and factually incorrect on a variety of vectors. Let’s go scrutinize my own team’s Agora profiles, shall we? You can open up the Element Inspector in your browser and see the truth for yourself.
Gee, it’s almost as if I asked them to make Agora accounts or something so they could introduce themselves to the community. It’s intriguing to me that you accuse me of making false allegations with no evidence as you then proceed to make false allegations against me with no evidence.
Uh huh, you got me. They’re all made up. They don’t actually exist and their work histories aren’t real.
You didn’t have anything to say when Jacob from Notional was working on the chain. He’s a validator / developer too. In fact you didn’t have anything to say at all until March 27th when you came out of nowhere on Agora to support Ed’s “Legal Representation for the Terra Classic DAO” proposal. Interesting, isn’t it?
They come in to deal damage. It was so similar to what happened with the Terraport project that I couldn’t help thinking about. This is the plan to destroy Lunac.
We aren’t being billed for items already completed in Q1, Funny how the current L1 team are fully doxxed bar 1 but yet none of this proposed team are willing to be doxxed therefore very easy to just get the money and run with noone know who they are to take action upon, and i agree the community can be hostile but if your wanting to work on the chain as the current team have done then you need to be doxxed which doesnt need to be public but to TGF or whom ever so that any legal issues arise it can be dealt with correctly, in terms of AMA why hide behind profile pictures and be a keyboard warrior when people ask to go on twitter spaces or podcasts if there is nothing to hide, if your wanting to be a big part of the community as a dev team then these things need to be done, doesnt have to be everyone but a couple of people to talk to the community, and in terms of the allegations your essentially stating that the L1TF is commiting F r aud ( apparently i cant say the full word ?) by charging for work already done the evidence is in your own words, and in terms of the pictures, your taking a stance saying you do not like main members of this community some of which you want to work along side why on earth would we trust anyone who is clearly against the people who have stood up for this community and actively support it, and then theres the EXACT same style layout and font for all the devs posting very similar work histories, all ironically same date as well. and yeah so what i joined in march ? i decided i wanted to delve deeper than just being an investor and see about the whole goverance after watching it for so long and actively partake in it, but its funny how alot of the community say the same thing about you and your group of devs, why are you so desperate to work with the L1 team, its already been stated that they can do the work that currently is required and the work you have suggested can be done by them why should we spend MORE money just so you guys can do very minimal work which as i stated can already be done by the team we have already paid, why not make a L2 team which is something we actually need, as i said its No with Veto, you guys tried with Rabbi to take over it failed, this will fail also, oh and just to answer your bit about jacob and his validator, id of said the exact same thing, no dev should have a validator as its a conflict.
I’ll give you the same advice as WAGNER, if you want to escape the “LUNC bubble” then go elsewhere. These are LUNC forums, Terra Classic, not greater Cosmos forums.
What I am preaching is the gospel of Jesus Christ. When it comes to LUNC, I am advocating for my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ which you have already seen. My plan is excellent and achievable.
I’m not interested in MERGING with other cosmos coins and altering our rewards structure and oracle pool with a complex new system. I’m not interested in LUNA investors or others mooching off our rewards. I don’t support merging or integration with other coins. LUNC is just fine by itself.
I don’t agree with the whole concept. If you want to stake LUNC then buy LUNC. If you want to stake other coins then buy them and stake. Allowing other coins to come and stake on LUNC, reducing our rewards is a big NO, and sounds like a scam.
I am focused on LUNC. I am a LUNC validator not a Cosmos validator. I don’t care for integration with other coins. They can do their own thing. If they want to be involved with us then BUY LUNC. There is no good reason for us to join the LUNA proposed Cosmos Alliance. It’s a NO for me on this proposal at this stage.
Was Jesus about devout following for personal gains?
What you are doing is using religion as a tools for self-serving interests.
You are preying on the less critcal thinkers to rouse up the mobs, so your “message from Jebus” has some validity in the eyes of less forunate.
Oh, yes, I do remember when I read Bible and Jesus Christ turned bread into fish and then later on went to sell that fish on the market.
King James Bible has a whole chapter how Jesus started a water2wine pyramid scheme!
I’m sorry. I don’t care what you are interested in.
LUNC nor USTC can’t get there by themselves. Even your religious spin-off about capitalism needs followers.
An echochamber or a closely kept borders do not bring in new individuals.
I bet you don’t like a lot of things. Yet this is a blockchain and finance is the game.
Not preaching to a choir about greatness of LUNC and how it was brought low by another sect of religious fanatics - the dollar lovers! The heathens who gained their capital through nefarious deeds, no doubt. Using other chains and other tokens to leverage their positions. Oh those devils…
Wow you really are a wicked snake aren’t you Don? Couldn’t stay on topic but the devil within you compelled you to attack me for my faith? Weak evil man.
My righteous cause as the Lord has led me is pure. The Lord is going to raise LUNC to bless His people, and thereby all who have invested, and you’re just one of the many enemies standing in the way. But don’t worry I will continue to push for my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+, which God has led me to share and strive to implement, which is excellent and achievable. Imagine a man crying and complaining about LUNC going to $1+ because of his own seething darkness within him. That’s you.
Good thing I will vote NO or NO WITH VETO on these garbage MERGE proposals. Go run off to your other coins Don, since you clearly don’t believe in LUNC.
Go cry and run off to your other coins Don. You complain and rage because someone believes in LUNC and has a plan for it to succeed. Pathetic.
LUNC isn’t about religion nor Jesus. It never has been. It has no ties to any of your nonsense.
Go make a Bless-U-Token if you want to start mixing and matching religiousness with capitalistic gains.
This aint a church and you are a holy man as much as Rabbi is.
As is your right! Smite them wicked fools. Smite them!
So, padre, I see your faith isn’t strong in Lunc. The bags you hold are tiny and small.
A man with faith would surely have a bigger stake in this chain.
Or did you got some other coins that are stopping you from fully investing?
In all your dribble - you have failed to address how exactly does isolation bring in new investors or put the buy pressure on this “Jesus approved” token.
Basic tokenomics apply.
Or does your plan consist of praying and faith, no action,only talk?
You just hear whatever you want to hear in your little telegram group man.
What are you even saying here? To anyone with a rational brain, your crusade against these so called “bad actors” makes you appear as
a m o r o n who watches too many avengers movies. Do you not want more people working to help grow your investment? I genuinely don’t understand. It’s like you people want LUNC to fail.
As for the proposal itself, I hope common sense prevails and this gets passed. Keep up the good work and thank you for not giving up on LUNC Bilbo & crew!
For you it isnt, for me it is. God led me to buy LUNC by a dream on 13 May 2022 where I saw it at $0.50, and God led me to become a validator, and God led me to prepare and advocate my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ so that LUNC will rise greatly and bless His people and its investors. My involvement with LUNC is inherently based on my faith as a Christian, you cannot change that. I will continue to do as the Lord leads me.
True to my words against you, lying Tonu. Actually, my life savings are in LUNC. I buy as much LUNC as I can whenever I can, because I believe in the prophetic dreams God gives me about LUNC’s amazing future. I am focused on LUNC. I am a LUNC validator. I believe in LUNC and my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+. Your focus is on other coins you advocate for instead of LUNC’s interests. A wicked devil like you thinks it’s sport to attack someone for their righteous faith. You started it here and couldn’t contain yourself from going off-topic with your anti-Christian rant, because you were triggered I disagreed with you on the Alliance module integration.
Your advocating for diluting LUNC and merging with other chains, letting other chains mooch of our LUNC staking, altering our rewards mechanism and oracle pool. This is just another MERGE proposal by another name. It’s obvious you don’t believe in LUNC, so you cling onto the terrible idea to merge with other coins. As I said before, go leave to your other coins if you desperately want to escape the “LUNC Bubble”. Prating about “tokenomics” doesn’t hide the truth about what this means.
We don’t need to merge with other coins for LUNC to succeed. Since you asked about my plan, I already laid out my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ here on agora and on Twitter. My plan can make LUNC truly succeed. I’ll link the photo here of the plan flowchart to give you the opportunity to read it and enlighten your dark mind with something good:
Yes, I see you are still shilling your vision.
See, the vision relies on one thing and one thing only: Volume.
Who creates volume? Traders. The price isn’t dictated by those holding the bags, but the volume.
The daytraders, speculative traders - those are the people who have funded CP from the tax and gas fees.
You want to isolate yourself from them so they can’t get your precious holy bread? Yes. North Korea also thrives due to no economical collaborations and little exchange.
Look, your vision is eh - differences of opinion, but it’s half made since it lacks any and all incentive to actually trade this token and Alliance is what it says - an alliance. Lunc stakers can stake their lunc in other economies and go grab their riches.
Since we are poor as a paulper - we benefit the most.
You being a church going guy should know how Church loves to take from the poor and rich alike.
I’m not affiliated with this group or proposal, stop trying to attack them by using me.
Also, I don’t verbally abuse the community - I do that only to scammers and grifters who lie to everyone while plundering the community pool. I’m active on multiple LUNC Discord servers, and most of the community has no problem with me. It’s only a small handful of shills that run away when I show up, then talk shit behind my back.
Speaking of which - why’d you bail Academy, Paco? I asked you legitimate questions, like why you have no problems with half of Steam’s team being undoxxed, but you want to enforce AMAs and whatnot on Bilbo’s team? You’re incredibly dishonest and have double standards, Paco. I’ve pointed this out on numerous occassions in multiple servers, but you run away every time I show up. Go pester Steve and his ghost team a bit, they took $125k from the CP for 3 vacant dev slots, none of whom currently have GitHubs or did any AMAs/spaces simply because they don’t exist.
Either hold everyone to the same standards, or shut up.
They need to submit their real names and GitHub profile. Only doxed devs should receive funding, that way a proper contracts can be written up. This will protect both the community and the devs.
If we succeed in getting the 1.2% burn tax off-chain there will be a huge increase in volume, new investors, traders and speculators. A small fee is not going to stop people trading when LUNC is multiplying in price due to the huge burns and hope of recovery. Also the plan details how to incentivise and achieve consensus before a simultaneous launch, so if we capture the majority of traded volume under the 1.2% burn tax, exchanges don’t have to step out alone. You lack understanding about what would happen if the plan was successful. If we cannot achieve significant off-chain burns within 6 months the tax changes can be rolled back. The 1.2% tax was dropped to 0.2% 6 months ago with no results. I’m talking about my Vision Plan since you mentioned I didn’t have one and was only praying by faith. Well I have an excellent plan, and I am praying in faith also.
They will come take from our oracle pool, it’s part of the Alliance I read the docs. We don’t need other chains merging with us. If you want their rewards go buy their coins Tonu and stake with them. They can keep their mitts off our LUNC, unless they want to buy LUNC and become investors. So not agreeing with LUNA’s alliance module sponging off our staking rewards is akin to a North Korean economy? No. LUNC is unique and we are our own coin, we don’t need them to be good. This is a lot more than an alliance, it’s more like a merge with serious changes made to our rewards/oracle pool. Definite NO from me.
Well for one Tonu, I don’t go to church, but I pray and seek the Lord Jesus Christ and read His word in my own home. We are poor because people refuse so far to raise the tax to a reasonable level to fund the chain, and so far do not want to fully explore off-chain burns which can recover the chain to $1+ and beyond by reducing our hyperinflated supply. My Vision Plan does not stop building as dapps are tax exempted, and we have way more on-chain funding. I am LUNC focused so I don’t support proposals which seek to merge with other coins, whatever name that comes under, whether “Alliance” or another.
