From fb0e8ca4c40c3b7b9702289f7911fc35b6ff411b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: leohhhn Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 00:17:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] add peace.md --- posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md | 223 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 223 insertions(+) create mode 100644 posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md diff --git a/posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md b/posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a4490af --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +--- +title: Peace! +publication_date: 2022-05-02T13:17:22Z +slug: peace +tags: [peace, cosmos, gno.land] +authors: [jae] +--- + +# Peace! + +I've never been put in such a difficult position, of having information that I +cannot reveal. And if you know me, you know that I like to speak my mind. But +I cannot say the things that I would rather say, because you get a lot of flack +for saying anything bad about a public chain. + +So I have been sitting on this issue, losing sleep about it for years, because +it leads me to worry about the safety of the hub. From an external person's +point of view, the solution is obvious -- reveal the information for the +betterment of everyone, no matter the consequences, because that is the right +thing to do. As a stakeholder, and I agree with the majority of the community +that peace and silence is better, with exceptions. + +So without turning this into a war of accusations bringing back past drama, +let's just do this: dear core contributors, Ethan Buchman, Zaki Manian, Jack +Zampolin, and everyone, here is my peace plan. + +---------------------------------------- + +## On Prop 69 + +Prop 69 is about adding CosmWASM to the hub. I have repeatedly talked about +the dangers of adding CosmWASM to the hub, including a document shared two +years ago. + +https://github.com/jaekwon/cosmos_roadmap/tree/master/shape_of_cosmos#smart-contracts + +Even before prop 69, I had declared publicly that stakers voting yes to adding +WASM on the hub would not receive airdrops. Primarily, because it increases +the surface area for attack by an order of magnitude. CosmWASM adds two layers +of new complexity to the hub. WASM itself, as well as CosmWASM. WASM as a spec +and its implementations are still maturing, and though available on browsers, +and some blockchains, it still hasn't gone through the gauntlet of time. All +new complex technologies like WASM, like Java, Linux, and even Go, in hindsight +have numerous bugs that could have or were used maliciously. The same will be +true of any WASM integration with the hub, and this potential for exploits +combined with the massive potential rewards (especially of pegged PoW tokens) +makes such exploits an inevitability. + +In Juno recently there was a bug that halted the chain for three days. Worse +can happen on the Cosmos Hub. The very identity of the Cosmos Hub (it's most +valuable asset is specifically a schelling point brand, of being a "common IBC +hub") is threatened if a bug were to result in the theft or loss of coins. On +platforms like Ethereum or Polkadot, perhaps they would have a better time +rolling back the chain to undo a hack as in the DAO hack. The major difference +with an *IBC hub* is that it cannot simply reverse the transactions of other +chains. + +We have yet to experience such a bug in any of our zones on a major scale, and +have yet to learn how to coordinate in the case of such in an interconnected +web of zones. Where are the planning documents for disaster scenarios? Between +PoS chains with good governance, we will learn how to roll back transactions +across connections, if need be in exceptional circumstances, but we aren't +there yet. This option isn't even available with pegged PoW coins. + +Yes, the contracts that are approved to run will be governance gated, but this +is not enough. For one, even with perfect governance, there are two new pieces +of complexity that will see more zero day bugs in the future for exploitation. +In terms of governance, the contracts are probably going to be written in Rust, +and so suddenly the validators that joined the project by inspecting the Go +code is now required to also audit Rust code. But also, we are now truly +opening the doors to all kinds of contracts to be run, because while governance +does sometimes reject proposals, it is generally accommodating to new features +especially endorsed by core contributors. + +I know of three alternatives: + +(1) we can use IBC to offload features to other zones. For liquid staking +(which should not be the focus of the hub) the hub could allow validators to +restrict the destination of unbonded ATOMs, and smart contracts running on +other zones can distribute those ATOMs according to the logic of whatever +liquid staking contract. This ensures separation of concerns, and a minimal +hub. + +(2) we can use Go plugins to extend the functionality of the chain. + +(3) we can do nothing. if liquid staking is such a big deal, something is wrong +about priorities for a cosmic "hub". If the liquid staking market is larger +than the base non-liquid staking market, the system is open for manipulation +and is insecure. The focus should not be on self-limiting use-cases, but the +infinite market of running validators with replicated security, perhaps running +a simple dex, and most of all innovating on and offering interchain security, +the business of judging validation faults as related to Tendermint, and perhaps +the interpretation and enforcement of self-enforced customs (law) of a +blockchain as defined by its shareholders who defer validation (and perhaps +judicial services) to the Cosmos Hub because it has a reputation for being the +longest ever running proof of stake hub that has never gone down, even as +compared to the upcoming Ethereum2.0. + +And note, I'm not proposing that the ATOM stakers forgo the benefits of +supporting contracts with CosmWASM. I support Juno and Tardigrade and Ethan +Frey’s work, but I also support the Hub running shared security, especially +simple replicated shared security where the validators also validate other +chains. I think this, and interchain staking, are the only profit models needed +for the hub (besides being a hub). NOTE: But those "consumer chains" ought to +be provided with full disclosures that the Cosmos Hub validators do not +maintain their respective software (as it would be impossible to audit all +zones that would benefit from the hub's security) but only offering validation +services as-is. This would force the hub validators to solve process isolation +(and I would much prefer building the protocol to NOT require particular +solutions like Docker, but allows validator choice), or else they would quickly +get slashed from malware (and that would be good to prune those validators from +the hub). + +So many options that don't require putting WASM on the Cosmos Hub. + +------------------------------------ + +## On Incentivized Votes + +In corporations, you can buy shares to influence the outcome of governance +votes. In democracy, this is not allowed because the vote could be bought to +infringe upon the rights of other people. + +What do you do when the chain's own core contributors proposes a proposal that +you judge damages the integrity of the system? I think that's a good time to +create a fork of the hub's ATOM distribution led by a new development team. +Sometimes this option is the only option because of safety concerns, and this +is the case for me here. + +### Why is the snapshot date 5/19/2022? + +A snapshot in the past is more vulnerable to insider gaming, because there is +an imbalance of information--only the coordinator knows, and so can game the +premine. + +It is good to give many people the advantage of participating in a snapshot. +Excluding anyone who would have been an ally of a chain, in turn creates +animosity that would rather see another project succeed where they are +included. + +Even before the proposal I had pre-declared that anyone who votes for WASM on +the hub would not receive a gno.land airdrop. The proposer probably knew this +when the proposal was submitted. + +The snapshot date would have been 7/4/2022, because that is Independence Day in +the United States. I originally chose Independence Day because of the general +original mission of Tendermint, Cosmos, Bitcoin, and the crypto spirit; and +because the United States (as flawed as it is) is the best historic ideal of +human liberty we've had since before the days of Rome. + +Then prop 69 was submitted. I had said previously that we would exclude those +who vote in favor of WASM on the hub, but we don't have the tools yet to tally +the movement of tainted ATOMs after the unbonding period for the hub. So I +decided to move the snapshot date to 5/19/2022. + +Now with prop 69, I see that to me, 21 days after the beginning of proposal +\#69, 5/20/2022 (but 5/19/2022 PDT) is a chance to create a new community within +the Cosmos ecosystem that champions safety with a zero tolerance policy and a +mission to develop social coordination tools like the GNO smart contract VM, to +create even better governing bodies than the one we have today. + +### Gno.land and Cosmos Hub + +Now, I feel compelled to exit should prop \#69 pass. But as it is now, 16.57% +are voting YES, while NO and NO WITH VETO have 70.73% and 8.38% of the votes +with turnout at 30%. If the proposal does not pass, I would feel no need to +exit. For as long as the Cosmos Hub remains minimal and secure, we will favor +it as the dominant or only token hub connected to gno.land via the current IBC +implementations for the purpose of interchain token transfers. It's a job that +we'd rather not solve, as specialization is what will get us to the finish line +before other platforms do, and also I'm quite hooked on gnolang programming and +just want to make gnolang apps. Not everybody wants to build a DTCC, but many +would prefer to use it. + +### Airdrop distribution + +When I was asked on Cryptocito what I would have changed if I were to do it all +again, well, I would put the ICF in the hands of the chain. So in gno.land, the +ICF's portion of $GNOT will go to DAOs on gno.land. As for me, I have a +significant amount of ATOMs that voted for NO WITH VETO, but most of my tokens +by far are with the company that I previously founded, then called All in Bits, +Inc. AIB will not receive any $GNOT except by completing negotiations with me, +which is taking a lot longer than is reasonable--or not. + +For reference, for the genesis of the Cosmos Hub, the total distribution for +both entities was 20% of all ATOMs, and today it is still significant. The +total premine that I control directly or indirectly will not exceed 1/3 of the +total $GNOT distribution, but I am considering 20% again. + +Some more guidelines, which may change, so don't take anything here as +financial advice: + +* NO with VETO is slightly better than NO. +* NO is better than ABSTAIN. +* ABSTAIN is better than not voting at all. +* Delegators inherit the votes of the validators. +* If you vote YES on \#69, you will not receive gno.land $GNOTs. + +NOTE: If you don't like my airdrop rules, you are free to make your own, and if +you're nice you can even run gno.land contracts if you so want there, or you +can just run a fork of gaia. + +If you have a better ideal for such an exit-drop by tweaking the governance +module, I'd love to hear your feedback, or generally how you think I could have +done this better. Some say that they don't want to see more of this kind of +forking, but I think we ought to celebrate it instead. + +---------------------------------------- + +## Conclusion + +Here's a peace offering. + +Just change your vote from YES to NO, and I will not intervene upon the second +submission of the proposal (and I would even fund its deposit if need be). But +if you instead feel strongly about signaling in favor of CosmWASM, here you can +express it, and I celebrate you, for being different than I, and wish you the +best of luck. That is equivalent to a no-confidence vote on gno.land, and is a +proper way to diss me. Again, I salute you. + +If you can reconsider your vote to be a NO, or even better, a NO WITH VETO, I +welcome you to gno.land. Happy 5/19/2022 (5/20/2022 Europe) Gno.land +Independence Day! \ No newline at end of file From 426b4955becea78db396b22c375e763d9d9f390b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Manfred Touron <94029+moul@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 17:33:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Update README.md --- posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md b/posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md index a4490af..fe42d64 100644 --- a/posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md +++ b/posts/2022-05-02_peace/README.md @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ --- -title: Peace! +title: "Peace!" publication_date: 2022-05-02T13:17:22Z slug: peace -tags: [peace, cosmos, gno.land] -authors: [jae] +tags: [peace, cosmos, "gno.land"] +authors: [jaekwon] --- # Peace! @@ -220,4 +220,4 @@ proper way to diss me. Again, I salute you. If you can reconsider your vote to be a NO, or even better, a NO WITH VETO, I welcome you to gno.land. Happy 5/19/2022 (5/20/2022 Europe) Gno.land -Independence Day! \ No newline at end of file +Independence Day!