Quick question, do I need to mute the fucking microphone when I'm here?
Welcome to Game of Nodes, a weekly podcast on Cosmos from independent validated teams.
Hello everybody and welcome to Game of Nodes, where we punk out, I guess, now when we start up.
Perfect.
This week, we have myself, Yussepa, Cufelik, and Highlander.
So Cufelik, we're just going to call Simon today because I can't remember the deep saying that.
Highlander and Simon are from Chained Tools and maybe we can just start off with some introductions.
So if I'll pass it over to Highlander and Highlander, if you want to introduce yourself,
give a little bit of history about Highlander Nodes and now Chained Tools and we'll move on from there.
Hi, I'm Highlander as you know from the community in Juneau initially, but recently we've teamed up with Simon and formed Chained Tools.
We're merging forces to try and expand or further into the Cosmos and help secure the interchange.
Did you freeze?
Nope.
Is that it?
So just give us a bit more information about, you used to be Highlander Nodes.
Yeah, his moniker was Cufelik, but you guys have recently teamed up.
You've rebranded to Cosmos Tools.
What's the tools part of that? So you obviously are still validators and I guess are looking to provide additional things to Cosmos.
So do you guys have a plan for the tools part?
Yeah, so we're going to inspire the little bit by Paul Kutcher's great work of recently providing pairs,
providing snapshots, state sync, just enabling new validators to come on board and sort of quick sync themselves on the networks that they're validating.
But we want to try a little bit more by educating people as well.
And also on top of that, while I'm learning a bit of coding and stuff.
I'd like to try and set up a bit of an academy as well, not only for Giro, not only for EFOS.
But obviously just try and inspire the next wave of developers, engineers to come on.
We're in a bear market at the moment, but I think this is great.
You're in my future.
But as I said, I lost my train of thought.
So the next wave, we're in a bear market at the moment.
So we've got a wave of new users come on board and we're so far ahead in terms of technology and talking about cause and wasm,
talking about loads of technical stuff and most people will be like, what the fuck's a wallet?
How do you set up a wallet?
We want to try and just bring it back a little bit and slow down, go back to basics and sort of bring all these kind of new people on board.
We thought we should team up together because Simon's a very, very good systems devops engineer.
I can't go further than four chains on my own.
Four's pushing it.
Both of us together teamed up.
We thought already we're seeing good results in the space of three weeks, you know.
So it's been a positive move.
Something I've got really excited about recently as well, because we're in a bear market.
It's nice to be busy and nice to be doing stuff productive.
Yes, it's good feeling.
So we're kind of, I left from Highlander nodes and we've seemed to merge together as hopefully a good team going forward.
Awesome. Fantastic.
And Simon, mate, do you want to give us a bit of an introduction to yourself, mate?
Oh yeah, definitely. So as Rob mentioned, basically we teamed up recently because now we're validating different chains.
I think I reached a critical mass of not being really able to drive the self going forward.
Having 20 chains actually, only validators, then I start putting relays in place as well as some RPC nodes and stuff like that.
It's really like, for one man show it's too much.
So there is a need to team up.
As we've been actually working on technical stuff for some time, it's been actually a year or even longer basically.
We bumped onto each other on some test nets some time ago and that's how it started.
Actually decided that it's a good idea to move on.
So basically start to systematize things and put infrastructure things in one place.
I can look after that and start actually looking after some bits and pieces we can deliver to the community as a team at this stage.
Once actually we can take the load from each other on particular items, then we'll be more productive on interesting items.
What we're looking into, like Rob mentioned, is this education piece.
And in here we want to really focus on piece for the end users, how to approach the ecosystem, how to use it, what advantages they can have, and basically what that is.
That will be the one thing.
We also want to focus on some technical stuff because basically now you can see a lot of test nets, a lot of people coming and they also need to have to learn the good habits.
How to run the validator, how to run the node and stuff like that, not to expose for example, chain for the security vulnerabilities, which is quite popular.
Why you don't run the validator as a route, for example, why docker might be dangerous, why you're not supposed to throw like a bunch of services on one system and so on.
So this will be also part we want to encourage people to learn and to look into from technical perspective how to implement good habits in the environment and the systems.
And apart from that, of course, jumping to the new chains and keep providing services as we do at the moment, like Rob mentioned, infrastructure services.
This is mostly my area.
I'm around infrastructure and DevOps 20 plus years in IT, so I know that thing now trying to develop something with a little bit of a success sometimes but that is also space out to jump into.
And the tools piece also is we got a couple of things in mind what do you like to deliver also, which is kind of automated way of deploying the node.
And if you want to get a full node, just here's the unsealed label, for example, just press the button you don't need to be in the compile and the anything you don't need to know where the source code is just put basically the name of the server it will deploy this so that will be this piece.
And then also some extra online tools we got couple of couple of things in mind how to how to improve the ecosystem and help people actually to utilize cosmos better. So that's that's basically what we have in mind.
If you unmute yourself, we can even hear you then.
I'm not good at this stream and she.
Okay, it's.
What do you what do you see being the first educational document you guys might put out so are these going to be like medium documents.
And that will be driven by documentation or bits and pieces we have because we got lots of nodes collected as more mostly markdown documents for the installation so first of all we'll be clean this up, make this in a readable format and publish as medium or block documents so
the platform will be will be piece of a choice and another thing actually we also want to release some videos some educational videos where you will have actually the theoretical part that's the architecture of the system.
Let's take the cosmos, for example, because my visor is the process manager and that's how it works. That would it does and then demo part how to install this and say and utilize this in your environment and yeah, we want to release also also multimedia actually
I look forward to that look forward to reading it you mentioned a platform called block is it what is that one.
Is it medium or block.
Well, what.
I've got him is about the front end for chain tools and you've seen some of the front end stuff I've done the past it's not it's not incredibly gifted or anything but you know it's a it's a way of giving yourself a task to try and build something on your own accord and learning properly.
And then we run this.
I run sanity CMS on the back end and you literally just type in anything on a blog and it will just render it straight to the sort of blog page that we've got on our website, which makes it easier for because we don't want to be spending our time writing blogs, we've actually employed someone for like six weeks to try and help us out writing some good articles and getting
to the end of a you know, because I speak Scottish at the end of the day, don't I.
Right.
So sometimes I might come across as a bit fucking sweary or whatever and you know, it's nice to get some professional into do it properly for six weeks.
And so yeah, it's easy for him just to go up to the did the data and it just renders on the front end page.
So we've got that on the go for blogs, but then I say to Simon, I think we should look at an academy style thing because you know, we've got that on the go for blogs, but then.
Yep.
Is that is that me speaking there?
Wow.
That's incredible.
I just have myself there.
I know whatever.
That's when I say to Simon, obviously, like, you know, we should we should do something like an academy and sort of maybe do educational videos and yeah, we just take it from there really with I suppose more ideas will come into as the days go on and
different ideas and obviously I think what we say this well Simon that we're going to get some community feedback and what they want from us as a validator as well.
You know, not just what we want to do, but listen to the communities and see what they would expect from us going forward.
So it's good timing because there's there's never been more interest I think than what we see right now and and like if we were just I know we'll talk about say here in a second but say opened up like their incentivize testnet.
Last over the weekend right Friday or Saturday or something like that.
And I think in the course of eight to 12 hours they had 1200 and or 1300 pull requests with GenTechs in it.
Right.
So there's not there's not 1300 capable infrastructure operators in the cosmos today.
So I think one of the things that you can add.
One of the things I think would be important and one thing we did it we when we wrote documentation for the helium project when they were moving into validators was trying to be very clear and setting expectations like what are you getting into.
It sounds great, but what are you getting into like what does it really mean to be an infrastructure operator what truly are the costs what skill sets are you going to have because if you start missing blocks and you're trying to Google up how to do basic Linux shit.
Like you're you're not only hurting yourself but you're hurting the good possibility of taking funds away from people who are delegate to you and things like that.
Right.
So there was a we had a lot of expectation written just around that just to say hey before you get into this before you just jump head in like make sure you know what you're what you do.
These are the skill sets are important to be able to be a good operator.
Everything from obviously Linux skills and cloud knowledge and monitoring and 20 other fucking things that you need to know to actually have a good chance and running high availability operations right because it's a little I mean three cores of those you see are people running WSL on a windows
laptop right so it's fine but and then I think there's a part of that also is if it comes down from 1300 GenTek's down to 250 of good operators then you're you're also helping the team because these teams can't go through 1250s and try to figure out.
Does this do they know what they are doing or not right.
And I thought the other thing interesting along that lines was to say if you guys saw that and the one say did that on there they asked people to put a form in as well and they had some like quiz questions you guys see those where they put like hey if this if you saw this in the
governance proposal proposal what does it do or or like it was like some questions to get over the hurdles which I thought was actually pretty interesting but I think there's then you have those then people are taking those questions and popping it back at discord and say hey if you have this better than this
proposal so but but I think that was it's a step forward right because I think it's just it's really I think it's challenging for everyone involved when you have that many people and interested in something and I get it like you want to you want to grow but there's a lot to it right so it'd be good
be a good piece to think about this as well as like how do you how do you you don't take people away from opportunity but you also want to be very clear on what comes along with that opportunity.
Yes good point I mean Simon you were testing out saying that what recently haven't you.
How did you feel about it. What was you know because you're quite critical when it comes to chains are a bit of a.
Shit show.
Basically test that became kind of especially incentivize because now if you got tested the first question people ask usually is oh do we get in the world. Oh there's no other work. Then they just walk away. You wouldn't get the 1200 gentiles.
There would be no incentives.
That's the first thing so people like oh yeah easy money I go for this. I answer the question in the in the form then I get gentiles then I got validator. Oh yeah then.
I think that's right. That is another thing and then of course the restake and that's it and then we got yet another installation script for something more yet yet another actually the stacking script and stuff like that so it's it's.
It became a little bit funny sometimes to be fully honest from that perspective.
That's what put me off even more to the start and when it was the it was the faucet carry on at the beginning and I fell away from it.
I was well in the beginning we've more than it was this big. You remember Simon it's just this absolute nightmare.
I thought I'm done with this chain.
Yeah.
I'm not like trying to chase the master I stay in the set now you know but right. It's not I would like to see some.
I mean how does fucking 1200 odd or whatever it is GenTech transactions come through for a test net. I mean what the fuck is happening.
Which is also sorry.
It's actually along that same line is because their documentation was very clear in the GenTech structure which is usually good. It's usually somewhat of a sign to like try to you know they're not people are just copying pasting right like I don't think they even had GenTech command in there which was also really surprising that there was that many that that did it but maybe maybe it was on a previous repo or something I missed it but yeah I agreed it's like it's like I said it doesn't really help the team that much either and even on that most like they they started back off that right then they they ended up getting to a point where they did like.
Custom invitations for the initial validator set because they want to make sure they launch right because nothing worse than then trying to get through for incentivize test that rounds and then at the end you can't get off the ground because you don't maybe don't have the right set or whatever right.
I think it's good on them like Kajira for instance you should you seen a true Cosmos validator set shining right through there because there was a few like people when I was on early doors because I was sort of part of the.
Terra fund proposal and I was sort of before all the proposal happened I was talking to Kajira because I knew they would be leaving terror and stuff and but they told me long ago that we're going to launch her own chain you know we appreciate it and I say that's obviously fantastic brilliant and then.
I said well I'll be all the stuff for validating on it if you do launch your own chain but she's seen some of the familiar faces on there and it's just like you don't know who's who when you've been a validator on certain chains and that's you know that sort of that sort of filters out any of the shit I suppose straight away doesn't it you know if you know I'm talking to you if I'm talking to no or vice versa whisper working.
Boxgate you know I mean all the good guys and sort of filters all that straight away but I find that astonishingly 1200 applicants applicants for a you know I mean that's just like.
That goes down to the incentive piece that goes down to incentive because now I recently yesterday I build validator in the test net of the crowd control there is no incentive no nothing there's barely like 30 validators joining the network out of 100.
You got for that you got everything you can just actually drain for that a little bit even stay inactive said no problem nobody's interested because there is no incentive and I'm right and say says oh we got incentive everyone like yeah easy money we go there and that's that's what happens.
On the mass scale I think.
Yep.
No you're muted again.
I can read lips on that note though.
I'm gonna say so much.
So you completely right so I'm like when when it's incentivized test net I'm not sure how they get the word out there maybe it's just.
You know maybe this groups for incentivized things or whatever but.
When you when you have an incentivized one there's just all these people show up and and tons of people don't even they can't.
Even use Linux it's you know you look at the the chats in discord and it's like how do I log into my node like you know they're ridiculous and there's thousands of gentex is submitted with people who you know a good percentage of which.
Couldn't troubleshoot anything or you know that's that's not to say.
That they shouldn't be there so right net is a good place to learn right and I think that is the only place to learn there are people who will raise nodes on main net who don't know how to use Linux.
Just through copy pasting the instructions right which is fine until you get a problem and then the first problem you come across.
You know you can't fix it and then you know this.
This might be an idea for you guys to do what you guys might think about doing is running a highlander chain tools chain tools sorry running a chain tools network.
And use that as a test piece so instead of like this not incentivized but use it as a test piece to be able to you know maybe you don't get maybe you run a gentex every quarter or whatever else but at that point you can run a faucet you can.
People can spam the hell out of the faucet you can put it you can put 500 validators in the set because who cares.
You can do a bunch of things around that to allow people to get understanding of create validator edit validator.
People run on noise a year and and there's you can't get kicked out there's only there's more than 100 spots because who gives a shit if it takes a 10 second block time it doesn't really matter.
You can have an Explorer setup you can have people set up RPC nodes because there really is no like test net to be a validator.
There's a test net for there's a test net for projects right but that they had their their incentives are differently aligned than a validators incentives and that might be I don't think that exists anywhere right.
It's a great idea.
Yeah it'd be pretty cool because then then like all these restraints and issues about getting involved in a test that all goes away then you can who gives a shit you let people.
Spam a faucet all day they want doesn't matter where you are in the set you're not getting kicked out things like that.
You're right.
You know have have a missed signing window of like two blocks.
Get familiar with the on jail command.
And then slowly increase the block speed until you got like half second.
Exactly.
So kind of sandbox environment really that is true actually sandbox environment for the experimentation would be very good though.
So you think you're a validator and then.
And just come in like just cause issues to fuck everyone up.
That's right.
Exactly.
That says bro you said that's a great idea.
Well right.
I only take about 5% always time son of a son of a.
Adam Adam says experiment with Max staking caps.
That's a good idea.
Very good.
Anything over 4% you get instantly jailed.
We could slash.
We had planned to talk about governance now.
I have raised some questions about the the amount to submit a governance proposal with mixed results.
A lot of opposition to the increase that I proposed which is about I think 10,000 US dollars.
So sorry in Australia there wasn't it.
Yeah there's a lot over here 10,000 US dollars you have to sell your fucking house.
So okay so the thing is in the last couple of days there's been spam proposal from Boestrum right and basically these proposal is them just marketing.
Through the governance proposal system where obviously people read the proposals right so it's just a way of getting information to people through a different medium.
But it's not what governance is for right so obviously this is pissed off some people and and so I have talked to the core team at Juno and we talked about.
Increasing the minimum deposit for a governance proposal just to make it more unappealing to people to do spam proposals so that when they get vetoed.
They're losing more money rather than losing a small amount of money right.
So I guess the question then that other people are raising is well what is you know what's a deterrent amount of money.
That is also within reach of regular users with legitimate governance proposals right so the the medium is that you don't want to lock out.
People to be able to make proposals but you do want to make it enough that it is a disincentive where people don't want to lose sort of you know an amount of money.
So the funny flip side of that is in this case both rooms got money to lose so you know if you for example made about $10,000 you know that might be well within reach of both room for their marketing budget for example.
Like make make a proposal out of reach to like a regular user right so I think some things that people may not be aware of and this is purely because of you know lack of tooling at the moment in in the UI and UX space is that people can actually contribute to the deposit amount for proposals to get them up to a voting.
So I believe that the original intent of that was so that there could be a very high bar for proposals that then people could if it's a worthwhile proposal contribute to the minimum deposit to get it up for voting right.
So I don't think in my opinion and I don't know the original intent of the cosmos. You know architects but it appears to me as if that was the mechanism to stop people from making poorly conceived governance proposals so.
Yeah, I mean that's my opinion is anyone else like a surfer Highlander Simon do you guys have opinions on that or or could care less or I mean is it a burden to have to go and press the button that says no with veto like does anyone care.
Is there just going to be if we leave it to local they just be so much spam that people just stop giving a fuck about governance.
I think straight away. I don't think governance is took me seriously enough and out with validators and cause most no one does give a shit about governance because everyone thinks is a steak or a daily get up that you know my one vote means nothing.
That's what they think to themselves and that's why the Harley Harley of them don't even vote. But yeah there's there's definitely things that need to be changing governance like there's got to be something that has to be put in place.
I always go back to what Sony always said about the about a categorising your governance proposals in terms of something of a critical upgrade. It needs to be spoken on common well for it needs to be a certain amount that you need to deposit for that specific tier of a governance proposal.
If it's something minor or minute then obviously a little bit less but then you've got this what you're talking about now obviously if it's someone trying to spam the fucking network or use it for a different sort of purpose other than you know governance or just using it for market and it's quite cheeky.
Then I think you should be more than know with that or it should be something more critical that happens to them in terms of banning from the network and some more further actions happening because it's not going to stop as it really you know you can set the bar at 20 grand mate and they'll still fucking date.
You've got to push the step away but further I think in like I mean I'll eliminate them from the network to stone them. I don't know how you can do that in terms of code wise but you know it's got to be serious man you know because if you want it to stop.
You got to do it properly.
Yeah I totally agree like two things one is well three things one I don't even understand what boss from is I've never been able to figure out that website like I understand the cyber AI thing I messed with it for like a couple hours.
I don't get it so number two that change should no better than do this bullshit.
That's ridiculous. You're a member of the cosmos is an early cosmos chain. This is like original six right and to be able to take that goodwill of being an early cosmos chain member and then spam all these other chains with this horseshit is ridiculous like that's whether
you can do it or not like know your place in this ecosystem and like what the hell is this like and honestly if you're like if we were running a chain and one of four of us proposed this idea. The other three would instantly be like dude we're gonna get like 1000 no for V with vetoes here is
going to get bombed out which means they knew this was going to happen which means it's just kind of like I will just do it anyway because no bad press right which is just an awful like what the hell like that's this ridiculous I think for a cosmos chain to be able to do.
And I also agree with you what you said what Null said earlier around the original intent I think the it should go up.
Was this on a different call where Jack was talking about this relate to the original design which was that it was meant to be a community funded deposit structure.
But those you guys don't exist right at CLI only right now so he said that strange love has something in the works that they worked on in the past for that.
And then also like it does need to be built because I do think that the right thing in the future would be to allow something like a Commonwealth or something else to be able to have that in there be able to see the.
To see the proposal like in its form and then allow people to either.
I had deposits through that idea right I'm going to put five something towards this or something else and then you can even if you really wanted to like you could even find a way that maybe for specific proposal types like text proposals away from software upgrade where you can even mint a small amount on the depositors so if somebody's putting that deposit in right now there's no ROI on that right it just get your money back.
But even if you did a small mint and I made 10% or maybe 5% or something similar to that based on that deposit if it's a text proposal and it goes through.
Maybe you could do something to be able to have some incentive for people to actually read those and be able to pause it on and things like that like those are different ideas right but.
I do think a way to be able to show that there is no barrier to be able to add a deposit to that.
And then even if there's no incentive around that to be at least to have individuals you know understand what's in there and play a role in that because I right now it's just kind of like these things show up and there's one depositor and right you kind of roll on so that idea of.
I think and.
The last thing the last thing is I think raising the minimum until those UX pieces are gone.
I think creates in the wrong piece because then it then it becomes a only the whales quote unquote can.
Can deposit right turns into a it turns into a community exclusiveness or it excludes the community versus includes them and so to.
To Simon's point around the community not giving a shit about votes I think it actually read I think it even makes it worse because they can't like then if I don't have 10,000 whatever the hell it is.
I can't even put a proposal in right which I think and like what the hell why can't I right.
Is anybody thought about.
Is anybody thought about like you know the way the way the UK works in terms of like you've got all the we've got all the IBC enabled change right.
So there's your constituents is everyone thought about a cosmos parliament in terms of all the heads of every chain.
Going to the House of Commons and sort of shit out that way.
It's supposed to be trusted.
It's supposed to be permissionless.
We're going back well tiered boys.
Come on.
I don't think that's the way.
Maximilist which is Jake.
So.
It's really long and I think it's it touches on some good points.
I didn't want to read the fucking thing so I got to come on so.
Fucking love Jake man.
I'm going to drop in probably in like five or 10 minutes so.
Yeah anyway so.
It is a pretty, you know difficult topic I get.
I mean it is straightforward and it is difficult at the same time right it's straightforward in that governance should be a completely decentralized thing.
But it's difficult in that you know you don't want to mistreat governance so much that you end up with people not caring about it.
So yeah go go go go.
I mean look.
It's all well everybody who knows and the cosmos like us guys on this stream right we're not fucking idiots right.
That's enough for us to say you know we're going to ignore that proposal that's ridiculous.
But it's risky to the fact of maybe you know 100,000 delegates who don't really know that how it works and they just literally this is what happens.
They just yes yes yes and it fucking passes and it takes something like that for it to like actually be voted in.
I think we need to go back to the what what means Simon are saying about the educational part is just back to basics a little bit let the technical technical gifted gentlemen crack on in the network.
And all I'm saying is that we as a as a validator just going to step back and bridge the next wave and the newcomers into the ecosystem sort of go you know this is the basics you know this is governance.
And the decentralized environment and the cosmos ecosystem but also you know people who are savvy to cause or cause more so just look at these proposals and literally know with that.
But I think there should be more consequences for them for doing these sort of proposals like not just know with that only your funds.
They should be like you know a lot more serious consequences.
One thing actually which could be added now because now one depositor can actually put up all the money and it doesn't matter if you actually set the high amount of money which needs to go to against the proposal.
Just set up the number of wallets which needs to contribute of course that will put additional hustle then they can spread actually the amount but then you got at least this additional hustle they have to go through to submit a proposal don't allow only single single proposal.
That's supposed to be decentralized.
We might require a minimum of let's say 100 wallets to actually contribute towards the proposal before it goes for the for the voting deposit period.
And then not only only one person can do that raising the amount of money it will just push away like you said guys before smaller people who might have a good idea from even submitting it they say oh I will never get she contains people to put up money.
Nobody knows me or whatever you it's just screwed up from the beginning though it might cause this this type of effect.
So just just playing devil's advocate here right so I can see some problems with that but I can also see some solutions that other people might hate so.
I have bad news and bad news.
My problem with that is that it's quite easy to just civil wallets on on Cosmos chains where you just open up some wallets you can make 500 with a bot and put zero points like you would have to have a minimum balance on those wallets or a minimum history or something like that right.
Yeah, but also like the gatekeepers well not the gatekeepers the how would you I guess you could call it the gatekeeper to the network and the network security or the most interested parties in a network are probably the validators right so maybe if you're looking for like seconding proposals like so someone makes a proposal and then you know you're looking for a seconding proposal.
You know you're looking for community and network support for the proposal.
Then maybe you know it might needs to be seconded by a couple of validators or something like that to sort of get it to legit.
But I can see people absolutely fucking hating that because the validators already have a fair amount of control in terms of voting in in governance.
So sorry. Now one thing actually with this type of controlling it contradicts the idea of the environment that's supposed to be permissionless trustless everyone can submit something so I think it's more educational job on our side as a validators to explain to people how that works.
And if someone delegates to me for example should be able to ping me on social media saying gate was this proposal is about explained this to me and tell me how we should what we're supposed to do with this what the consequences are.
And then that's supposed to be work done on that level.
We shouldn't go into controlling piece of it because that will get actually into so many details that it really will get messy and there will be always fight between the people. It will cost only basically just unnecessary really angry people around.
Yeah, that other idea though was not a I mean it's an interesting idea the idea that maybe only a validator can propose. Hear me out. Maybe only a validator can propose so that's a community that's a community type of thing between delegates and a validator.
And then with that get rid of the idea that validators vote non voting shares.
So validators only vote their own personal wallets, not voting shares do not come along with that only community votes and validator personal wallets quote unquote or you know, self stake wallets type of things are in the quorum, but a proposal has to go through a validator so you kind of have like a there's a bit of a check and balance there and that type of structure.
That's just another idea.
But there's like it seems like there's a there's a good number of ways to kind of figure it out I think it's just a matter of kind of laying out some of the pros and cons type of idea.
There's so many variables that you could go down as you know, yeah, but I like the sound of that.
Yeah.
No, you're a music.
Try to say the trifecta.
And use a issue.
Still.
Let me go.
Drink break.
I was actually talking to myself.
Oh, sorry.
I'm going to call you.
So, soy to studio is actually been quite he's been saying a few things on Twitter about this as well so I didn't even read this for a photo.
Anything that further impairs validators are bad.
To be fair, my idea was also removing empowerment of out here so both sides like I was trying to work both sides but I understand that.
So like yeah it is it is a pretty like, you know nuanced subject I suppose.
And and to be fair, like the validated community may have a completely different view than the user community right so it's, it's like this.
Two sides to the coin.
Well, two perspectives to the to the issue.
So, I think that's as a validator community is something that we overlook sometimes is that there's two perspectives to most of these issues right and you know I think a lot of us do try to see it from a user perspective but maybe clouded by our own.
And so, I think that's a validator perspective in that we tend to do what we think is just the best outcome for network and network security right, whereas, you know, the users look at it from a perspective of usability and being able to use the features of a network and be able to participate in the network.
So we're validators are participants already right there's no matter what the situation is we're going to have some sort of influence and and participation in the network, whereas some decisions that we might think are right for the network might reduce the amount of participation that a user can have.
So, there is two perspectives to every situation that we come up with with this proof of stake thing that we're all trying to work our way through.
And those two different perspectives can be very different.
And it's our job as validators to try to see though both of those perspectives and do what's best as a whole, not just what's best.
What we think is best for the network.
Yeah, totally agree. I mean, it's back to this categorising the severity of the proposal.
There's so many variables to take into account. But, you know, if you start categorising severity of like, you know, if it's a keep going back to the famous journal prop, you know, that sort of severity would have to have, you know, how would you have dealt with looking at it now.
Pre that prop going up, you know, you've done that a lot differently, like maybe you wouldn't have. But it's just I think when you when you see something that needs to be, you know, validators have got to look at the code here.
You know, you've got to realise what you're upgrading or don't fucking vote because you don't know what you're doing.
You know, we all get caught with our asses up, fucking ass, sorry, a finger up our ass earlier on with that prop, it went to a wrong address. And it's like, you know, these things need to be seriously looked at now.
And because we were caught out hands up, you know, these are something we need to look into in terms of categorising what kind of proposal as, you know, if it's something like, for just a blocks time or, you know, something different, then yeah,
I just think it was something, something of serious severity. Then yeah, it needs to go through specific validators who have got to OK it or before it goes on chain, basically.
So Jake has arrived.
Yeah, what's up guys.
Hey, what's happening?
Oh man, that is a good sounding.
That is a beat of 57 man.
That is that's nice. Nice.
It's like a mile on the man.
I like.
So I just put the hard word on on yeah, I said we're coming to the end of this topic, man, you coming or not.
I don't even have seen that in the chat.
Oh, I miss it.
You guys already talked about it.
No, no.
So I just said we're getting towards the end of this topic man.
You coming or not.
So anyway, the what we're talking about here now is the the governance issues that are cropping up with the low bar for the for the proposal.
And the the deposit for a proposal.
And we've talked a little bit about, you know, various issues with that.
We've thrown some ideas back and forth, but I saw that you did have quite a big thread on Twitter on this very subjects.
And I thought that you may like the opportunity to touch on some of the points that you've raised there on Twitter and your possible remedies.
So we've talked about a couple of different things we've talked about is one to mitigate raising the bar for a deposit.
So for example, $10,000 or 3000 or 7000 or whatever it might be, right?
Just to try and provide a disincentive for people to raise spam proposals.
We've also talked about there could be different mechanisms for, you know, seconding proposals by other people in the community or validators.
That sort of segue a little bit on to removing voting power from validators by requiring them to second a proposal for it to become live, etc.
Various things like this or just talking off the cuff and some ideas are probably very bad and some ideas might have some merit.
I'm not advocating for any of them. Just raising them.
Yeah, that's what we're here for. Just got to throw some ideas out there. See what sticks.
Exactly. So one thing I think we can all agree on though is that, you know, the community education on this matter is probably not good.
And the UX UI for this for governance as a whole is not good.
So I thought that might be some things that you touched on in that thread, which I haven't been able to read because I've been trying to pay attention to the stream here.
So did you talk about a few things on this?
Yeah, sure. I mean, going on the whole UI UX thing, it sucks for the Cosmos governance SDK.
I think that actually part of the challenge, I noticed a lot of people were like, we're going to raise the proposal deposit.
And then a lot of people are like, wait, that means like, you know, poor people won't be able to vote.
Well, the deposit is already 500 Juneau. So what happens if you have one Juneau?
I think most people don't actually realize that it only it you don't have to pay the full deposit when you make a proposal, you only need one Juneau.
You can have multiple people contribute to a proposal deposit. That's how it is today.
Right. But because the UX around all this is so bad. And I think some of the education around this could be a lot better.
I think most people don't even realize I think they think the person who makes that a proposal has to pay the full deposit.
But in actuality, they only have to pay one Juneau. And as many people as possible can come together and pay the proposal deposit.
So it's $10,000 becomes hardly anything when you've got loads of people contributing to make the proposal happen anyway.
So this is the point.
You only need 100 people to contribute $100 and you're there.
And if you've got if it's any and there's a lot of uses like if there's any kind of good support for your your proposal,
My point is it's like raising it to $10,000 ain't going to stop the boss from sort of thing happening.
And then as it back to my point where it's got to be more of severity,
But 100,000.
I honestly think a chain that's as big as Juneau where still over $100 million market cap. I think $100,000 is fine.
And the whole expectation is that you your proposal has to be good enough that you can convince other people to put like to deposit on it.
And I think that that's honestly great. And I think that will result in better proposals.
Because you're forced to collaborate, you're forced to like go out and convince other people that, hey, this proposal is so important.
I want you to put your money on the line.
Jay, other than a good feeling about that, though, there's no return on that, right?
Like anybody who's sitting there looking at is say, I have a risk, there's no reward.
Have you guys, would it be possible for if it is at that number?
And that's that's like a significant number like $100,000 USD that if if I'm part of the member of the community,
and I think this is a valuable thing, why wouldn't we pull and make that a little of a mint where I have a little bit of return on that?
Like say it's 5% say it's 1% you know, something like that.
This is actually something I really want to work on with Dow Dow is a place to experiment with this.
I'm kind of very, I think there's, we have to think about what are the smallest changes we can make that will improve the current situation,
but don't require that much work. And then maybe where do we want to get long term?
To story my life.
So I think we need to be really careful about like incentives like that for like paying people to like, you know, if their proposal is successful.
Because that could also incentivize other weird things that we don't want.
I actually really excited about that. In fact, we have in Dow Dow we're working on some of the first incentivized voting contracts.
So I think that that's a really exciting design, a design space. What I think would be the easiest thing to do is shoot for another number like 10, 20, maybe even 50,000.
That's doable. I think 10,000 is actually a good number. It's high enough.
Yeah, you know, I really also put out in my Twitter thread there's two changes I want to make to the Cosmos SDK governance module.
I'll throw them past you guys. I think that if a proposal is in the deposit period. So when you make it, when you submit a proposal, it's in the deposit period and it's not live for voting on chain until it's past the deposit period.
Right. I think while it's in the deposit period, you should be able to edit it.
Yeah, or remove it.
So let's say I put the proposal up and then I'm like, oh, shit, there's a typo. I can remove the proposal and then put up the correct version.
And when I remove or edit proposal that should refund all like current, you know, deposits like we don't, you know, if the proposal text changes at all, everyone should be refunded for their deposit.
It's like we're starting over again.
Yeah, definitely.
And I think that that's kind of like great because that kind of creates like, you know, we've been talking a little bit about sort of what is a drafting process process for a proposal look like.
Yeah, you put your proposal up for deposit, you convince everyone it's a good idea to deposit on it. And then it goes up for voting. And that's how we're filtering for quality right there.
And I think you should make sure that the the deposit is high enough so that there's some risk so that people are not going to write spam proposals or that they're just going to take the time to write quality proposals.
Right.
And I think, and you would you would do a refund on the edit right because you wouldn't want to yeah so if there's any change to it then I'll make it three funded out.
I deposit on your proposal and then you change the one thing I liked about it. You know, I was just checking but yeah, that would be awesome because I think there's such a it's like it's scary thing I've done a few of them but you put that proposal button and you're like oh shit.
Make sure this is 100% correct.
And then you're just stuck there and then even once it's in the deposit period, you could be like, Oh no, I'm gonna write this other proposal I made a really bad mistakes don't deposit on it and someone goes and deposits on it now it's live on chain for a vote.
And people just hit yes right.
Yeah, exactly.
Like, I really want to, I think the easiest thing we can do is turn that deposit period and it's almost like a drafting period as well.
And it's like, that deposit can be set high enough so that that is a nice threshold for when a proposal is ready.
Maybe you can do memos in the deposit so you can actually have some comments and show those visible.
Like you can make it where I want to edit or maybe have suggestions or something else and get that off of Commonwealth and make it part of that depositing period right because Commonwealth is it's okay like it's with a third party it's like a third party tool right but could we could we actually use on chain and
could we use maybe small deposits in there to say have edits or something similar to that.
You know what I mean like something like that because it'd be nice to rely on a longer term thing of I think we also need like full on UI like around on chain governance.
It's not even easy to make a proposal.
Right.
Like you have to know how to use the command line and you have to edit JSON and even when you're editing the JSON it doesn't support like normal markdown you have to have like all the backslash and tabs you know for white space and right nightmare to test all that stuff like.
The only way to test that is to put it like test net proposals right.
Yeah.
I've been using I've been using like sorry.
No, I've been using sanity CMS and we've been rendering back end stuff it's like code in in GROC and it just sort of like queries that can adjacent format that I wonder if it's something you could build and with cause and just sort of like renders.
Whatever you're editing or whatever you're commenting on a proposal on chain renders it to a UI and just sort of gives you the on chain draft proposal.
So users can actually see what's happening and it sort of eliminates the commonwealth side of things.
It just sort of goes like you're saying Jack this is a step before it goes on to like on chain governance proposal is like the draft proposal.
Is it going to be rubbish stuff or is it going to be taken seriously you know something like a good UI experience I'm sort of like him what you're saying with that.
I think it's important.
Who goes on Commonwealth really let's be honest because I've not gotten off time of day to be on Commonwealth sifting through all these chats about governance you know so.
I do it's just like I use like nine different ledgers so signing in and being like a rhino and each one of those.
But yeah, we tried to.
So sorry Jake just what you were saying before.
So changes to the cosmos SDK one thing that I would like to see in there as well is and I don't think it already exists is the verification of param change proposals like it's it's a little bit off topic but when so that.
Param change proposals don't get up if they don't actually change a parameter that's in the.
The network if that makes sense so because I believe the way it is now you can submit a param change proposal that submits that tries to change a parameter that doesn't exist right.
I've not tried that but if that's possible that should definitely fix.
Well I know that every time I do a param change proposal I painstakingly make sure that it's correct because I believe that it would be quite easy just to submit one that does nothing because I think it would just accept any any JSON that's got a you know a change key in it.
And the things that come after the change key I don't know that they're verified according to the network because not all networks support all modules in the SDK as well so.
Yeah, there's a lot that needs to be fixed and improved and there's a ton of work to do on like sort of the UI for all the governance stuff.
Like with data we're trying to do as much as possible we actually have like on chain discussion for proposals and a drafting process that's coming.
But we're not doing native SDK governance yet.
Maybe we'll get to that at some point.
Yeah.
So, I think we've probably exhausted this topic for what we'd want to talk about today and we are probably going to start moving on to a bit of news etc. Do you think you're surfer?
Mia, thanks for coming and you are more than welcome to stay and talk about the rest of the shit we're going to talk about if you want.
I would love to but I'll be back like next week or so. Yeah, let's go do some things but I really wanted to come in and talk a little bit about.
Yeah, just the proposal deposit like how we can educate more people on this because and how we can make better UX around this and really I think if we can just get like the ability to edit and and delete proposals while they're in the deposit status period I think that'd be a very simple thing we could do that would have a very large effect.
Yeah.
Awesome man. Thanks a lot for coming on and actually I do want to get you back soon to talk about DOW DOW DOW.
Yeah, definitely. We'll definitely do that.
Well, that's because that's going to be that's that's going to be coming out soon right?
Yeah, it's going to be coming out like probably in the next couple weeks.
Well, let's let's organize it man.
All right, sounds great.
Thanks, Jake.
See you.
See you Jake.
Right.
So, right.
So, yeah, the news.
The news. Well, I think we wanted to have a couple minutes to talk about some recent test that launches been a little bit of a busy time here in the crypto price.
The bear market is the time to build the red candle times. Yeah.
So, we talked a little bit around say before so say had a DevNet one I think that was happening the last few months or maybe it was called test I forget what the actual name I'm not going to call chain names can I have it in front of me.
They just relaunch DevNet.
I think there's just a validator set was a little bit out of whack. And so they relaunch DevNet and then obviously we just talked about the number of kind of groups that are trying to get into this instead of as test net say teams doing a really good job of of we haven't it hasn't happened yet but I think as of Friday, they said they're going to rotate the validator set.
So, I don't really have any I'm not sure how that's exactly going to happen. I assume that's through foundation delegations and just applying big chunks towards validator sets and things like that I'm not sure if some of those will stick around.
We're in that list, which is nice to be a part of say, although we're struggling with blocks which we'll talk about here in a second why.
But they're going to rotate the validator set around as people more people come online and you know a lot are inactive in those types of things, which is really cool.
The they're going to start launching and doing a little bit more in terms of the actual testing aspect of the test net.
And so there's some structure around that and some goals and those types of things which I could put a link to the notion site from the say team that has a lot of good information about what that's going to be.
And I think the one thing interesting that is different I believe between DevNet and test I could be wrong but I think DevNet's running like one and a half second blocks.
And that's not started at least I think their goal is 250 millisecond blocks I think is what the goal is some raised eyebrows.
Yeah, I think that's what I think that's what it is. I think that's what it is in the.
I'm not sure I'm not sure how that's actually there's got 60 seconds at the moment right 60.
Sorry, there's what right now actually I could tell you exactly well right now.
60 seconds or yeah right now.
Yeah, well actually right now the last 24 hours on test my and tested Dev I'm in test net it's been actually just about a second so it's up to a second which I'm guessing is this based on the number of validators which is now grown to 50 so maybe it's kind of come up a little bit.
So, which we're not missing as bad now we were missing actually pretty decent when it was at 250 milliseconds because we had like I think it was like averaging a half a second a block, which there's a lot of shit going on there for half a second a block let me tell you.
Yeah, I think we're, we're doing a right there and I think I've missed that many blocks on that one.
Yeah, I'm not sure why this is a testnet box it's not it doesn't have that many stones to it but but but still like we we usually don't miss blocks it was it's always it's always a little bit more frustrating when you do that even if it is testnet.
And then, and then from the.
Well let me dig up a quote from the test from the same team and Highlander you guys are you guys running notes here.
In savings, so I'm in someone I say you know don the go at the moment yes.
Well yeah but I didn't actually create a validator from that so.
I just not yet cool.
Yeah, well then.
So these guys have been.
So just a bit of background on on the.
So they were 1300 odd Gen tech submissions right don't know how many of those are legit but the the team has been interviewing validated teams for quite some time so.
I do believe they have vetted out a lot of people who are like legit validators and other people who are there for the incentivization part of it that said I don't think that they're limiting the testnet to.
You know to limit the amount of people who are going to get rewards out of the incentivization, but I think they are limiting limiting the amount of people who are going to be in the active set right.
Yeah, so it's a little bit I think it might be a little bit similar and I'm not sure I think it might be a little bit similar to defund where defund said you know you don't have to be in the active set to receive incentivization for running the incentivize testnet right so that.
It's kind of to you know give everyone a chance to get some rewards there and stop people from just milking the shit out of the force that when it's there for people to get a small amount of tokens so that they can play around with the the DAPs that are attached to these networks right because.
You know it's not just a network you don't just want to try and spew out as many blocks as you can with no transactions in it they've got.
Their own modules attached to it in their own DAPs that they're trying to test which is why they're running a testnet so.
So yeah, I mean there is some sort of vetting that's going on but there's also a method to the madness in there so.
So what is it I've not looked at is saying that what much of all is this the same correct me if I'm wrong is this anything to do with the chat who created sentinels.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I seen that and I've seen pretty interesting.
Yeah, I'm trying to build an order book and those types of things for you.
So from PSU and the in the validator chase it because I was I was like, I'm like this thing's moving pretty quick.
Yeah, yeah, I see that and I thought fucking hell right so he's just like come out with us straight away that's interesting so.
Yeah, yeah, he actually so he said he said we actually want to miss some amount of blocks less than 33% of all blocks since that's an indicator that we're pushing the system.
If we're not there's room for performance I wouldn't worry too much about miss blocks less is more than the threshold.
Which I thought was pretty interesting like it's a just different mindset right because I think.
You know, miss blocks you know give me start shaking and stuff right so the idea that we're going to drop blocks is because of something that's like that so.
But again, looking down that list there's a there's a good amount of people missing blocks I'm dropping like I'm think I'm dropping 40 or an hour or 50 an hour.
But again, that's at half second blocks what it was.
There's a lot more blocks per hour than, you know, than a typical six second type structure so.
But yeah, so anyway that's off to the races I don't think any of the test net stuff has really started yet although I haven't really checked in today.
But yeah, that's pretty cool that that's that's moving exciting kind of see another order book structure come up.
So I think they have actually started testing the DAPS in some fashion because there's like random people doing stuff trying to there's a media article about tasks I believe.
There is notional it's an I'll put in the links but yeah it's a notion site I think with the tasks in it.
Okay, so I think we are yeah we're doing all right there in terms of miss blocks.
But so interestingly we are using a remote signer as well so I think some other people were having issues with the remote signer and that's probably due to latency with such a fast block time so yeah, I think we might just be lucky that we have low latency to our signers so.
But I actually you know I had a problem with because of the ways I say is it say or so anyway because of the.
I think it is say say see.
So we all want we all did Gen Texas right and then they launched the network without most of those Gen Texas but then sent some token to the people who.
They want like to some of those people with Gen Texas to get them to start a validator right now I was using a remote signer.
And I already had the remote signer connected to my node so it was already producing blocks right it just wasn't producing blocks as a validator.
Now the funny thing was, you know, I had assumed because of in the config that you actually point your validator node are your your century node away from the local privilege validator key right and sorry to everyone who's watching this who's not doesn't speak validator
speak right but you have a local key and even if it's not the validator key the program will generate dummy key that just sits on the the validator node no matter whether it's used or not or required or not it will still just make a dummy one if one doesn't exist right.
So, but I thought because my remote signer was connected and was telling it my pub key obviously that when I did the create validator command that it would use the remote signers key instead of the friggin local dummy key right.
I was fucking wrong.
So I immediately as soon as I created my validator it was missing blocks because it created the validator with the right rate in great remote signer key.
So I had to go in quickly and I didn't know what the signing window was either so I was just like panic station and and so I had to like move the key over to my signer and redo all my signer config to use that key.
So that was a scramble.
I didn't I think I missed and with one half second blocks.
I just bought a few blocks at a very short time but I think at the moment it's just fine.
So that's my story on say.
I'm glad you figured it out that's actually not a quite obvious thing I guess you have to start getting into understanding break is it.
Let's say knew that like if you know understand how that works and the obviously gosh it created this way but just seeing that thing miss it's not obvious that that's a runkey in there.
A writer that you created with the GenTex with their own key.
No but luckily that was my first assumption that I that that's what had happened because I was kind of thinking about it when I actually made the like it did cross my mind.
It just the assumption I made on that topic in my mind was that it would use the one from the the signer.
And then I didn't even check that I was making the blocks initially.
I was looking at so I looked down the validator list to see actually where we if we were in the list because that we stayed through it.
Right.
And then saw my my uptime wasn't 100% and I was like oh shit what's going on here and I went in there is just printing red blocks and I'm like oh shit.
And then fixed it so there was a couple of minutes later but anyway it was interesting and it's actually I'm glad that it happened because it's good to know because then I won't do that on a mainnet.
So yeah it's not not good look to as soon as you start a validator start missing blocks and the funny thing is that if you did that on a mainnet that you wouldn't automatically be in the active set.
Right.
You wouldn't even know because when you're in the inactive set you're not signing.
You don't know whether you're signing blocks or not.
Or whether you have the ability like whether you're using the right key or not right until you're in the active set.
And then so you could go and crowdsource delegations get on and go to Twitter and get people to delegate to you right and get promoted to the active set.
Yeah and immediately be missing blocks and if you do if that happens while you're sleeping or something like that.
You have to get up and fix it or you don't know when you get jailed.
It's not a good look.
I'm the gate not a good look.
So it's good to know that doesn't work.
Yeah.
I started I actually started to move all my GenTex locally like I don't do them on the actual nodes anymore like I always do it locally and.
Those commands locally just because then at least especially for mainnet type things or even if it's a crate validator just because then I have the key local and then and.
Really for GenTex at least and then I know at least I have the key local and then I can then I know I'm going to save it off and those types of things or otherwise I get worried about you know.
I'm not somehow saved the wrong key or some other crap associated that.
So I should actually clarify because I got the pub key from the command you know say a tend to mint show node show node pub key or whatever show node key or whatever the command is right.
But I did that on the validator.
Yeah.
So even if I did that on the sorry I did that on the on that century node right so even if I did that on that node and then command locally I'd still have the wrong key.
Right.
I just do it on testnet nodes because it's easier.
So.
I would have to go basically to the prev validator key file and just pull the key out of the file.
It's not.
It's not trivial to do it's just knowing that you have to do it that way instead of the other way.
Because the default command that you know is in documentation mostly is to use that tend to mint no module command that will give you the pub key on your node right but it just gets it from that file not the signer that's included to it.
So I actually think that should change.
I think that that someone should change that so that it produces the pub key for the key that's being used to produce blocks not the one that just happens to be on the node because I wouldn't mind suspecting that had you changed the home directory but that other home directory
existed that it would probably pull the the pub key from that default home directory probably you specified a home directory with the home flag.
So the other thing is like this.
There's lots of these built in like hard coded defaults in the Cosmos and SDK SDK.
So if you start do a GenTex right it doesn't matter what ports you have set in your config file right it'll produce a memo in the GenTex that says the default port and you can't change it because if you try to change it it will invalidate the signature on the GenTex.
So you're producing the wrong information to the you know to the other participants so if that if people pull that out and want to use that as a peer it'll be the wrong peer and it will just it might dial to that peer.
So I think there might be some flags that you can actually do in a in a GenTex certainly for your IP but I'm not sure about the I don't think there's one for the port.
I didn't know that.
I always I always do the same thing with with we run machines that have a both a private Nick and a public Nick.
And so it always it always defaults to the private so all those those those GenTex always have like a you know a non-routable Bogan IP address in there and I'd like to be able to change that actually I've actually to be able to change it with the DNS name for for the note because at some point like to be able to put that in there so that people can look at those peers to otherwise.
So I have seen that actually a couple times where I have seen DNS names in there so there must be a way to be able to change that huh.
Yeah, I think the so the IP I'm pretty sure you can specify with a flag but I'm not sure about the port.
So anyway, you know the news.
Hey, we were going to talk about the one coming this week is is D fun. So, oh, come back to a year because that's a long conversation.
Another one coming this week is D fund.
So D fund had the their last chain.
It just paused I think over the weekend or something D fund guys familiar with it is the idea of a building ETF funds of of coins within cosmos and maybe outside the cosmos which is a pretty cool idea.
So we ran into them at consensus which was really great to meet. It's always nice to be able to meet people that you know kind of talk to on discord.
So I ran to them and and so I know there's a new test net slash DevNet coming up here hopefully going to launch this week.
I haven't seen information yet might be it might be starting up maybe this weekend or next early next week something similar that so that's coming back.
There was issue with the last binary that was I forget what it was doing. It wasn't either clearing out old data or doing something because the basically was growing the folders like crazy.
And so I think they made some big changes to that because a lot of people are getting jailed out myself included actually ran out of space at like a terabyte.
I'm like I'm done because it really was no way to think of the types of things and so I knew it was ending anyway.
So I was like, okay, but that's come back next week or maybe later this week.
So that's pretty exciting as well. And then yeah, just that one you said the so.
What was it?
Oh yeah, so they had planned to halt that network right.
Yeah, yeah, I think it was a couple of days out and then there were enough nodes that couldn't keep up that it holds it anyway.
I think that's what happened.
I was asking John, I'm like, if you're halting, I'm like, you keeping anything here is like no. And so like, I think they're going to do a new genesis off the same, off the same maybe validator set or something similar.
I'm not exactly sure what's going to happen here.
I was like, just export the state across.
Oh, okay. Yeah, I was like, I'm like, just kill it. I'm like, just stop it.
Like, just call a halt. Let's halt it and like, you don't need it. We don't need to do a nice, who cares?
Like, just stop it to test that.
I believe the new the new D fun test net is going to be it's going to have some things improved in terms of storage.
But also they, yeah, they're going to have increased functionality with the ETF, which will be more towards like a closer anagram to what they're going to be launching with, I believe.
I'm not sure I don't don't know if it's incentivized or not, but it'll certainly be like a good testing ground for the for the launch version, probably deep on so.
Yeah, I'm excited. Like it's a good team and, you know, glad that this has been around for a little bit.
So I'm glad they're making some progress here. I don't think it's incentivized. I think it's just a, I think it's just a test net.
Okay.
So could you?
Yeah, please.
And is anyone got on me like quick silver network yet?
No, not me.
No, I ran and I ran nodes for the last test net. I think this last one I kind of gave up on because it had that same flavor of.
Right, like floors, how much time I'm going to put in this to try to stay in this structure.
So I think I gave up on the last one and I think there's another one coming to isn't there, right?
There's another. Well, I'm not sure about another test net quick silver.
What's the name again? Solestius. Solestius.
Solestia.
I've got that right there. Solestia.
That them and all something else that should be looking at but you know, it's something that works you're like try to keep up with your dick.
It's ridiculous.
I think we need to double up.
Us never mind just me and you're doubling up.
All right, you're going to do it again.
Fucking madness.
I think it's just starting.
I think I think like I think it's just the very beginning of it.
Like I think that's why I mean honestly going back to you going back to your training thing.
It's like it's a good time because I think this the number of chains are going to grow here and there's going to be there's going to be I think other than polkachu who will clearly will be on every single chain through the amazing aspect of the ops.
What's he got like is he got like five times polkachus mel's than the one guy or something because the what he puts out is like.
He's learning and so for very good at fucking automation and I think it's a lot of I think he has a button that's called the DFA button.
It's a do a call button and press it and it's a chain.
It's a chain but it also gives you state sync snapshots fucking live peers everything one button.
It's amazing.
I love what would you manage.
I gave him shit.
We were talking about seeds one day and like I forget what we were talking about.
It was something like because that whole thing that came out around bad persistent peers if you have it because people are putting like 800 fucking persistent peers in their peer book and then and like the nodes that are dialing shitty dead over and over and people are realizing they're missing blocks because this thing is spending so much time at bad persistent peer structures.
I'm like I've always been an advocate of like get rid of this shit like just put a good seed in there.
But some notes don't like some teams don't run seeds and then he and I were talking about this and then like eight minutes later this massive seed service was lost.
There's like a website where like all these seeds in there is like 75 seed nodes.
I was like what I was like.
It's like yeah.
I tend to see and here we go.
It's good to have like chain registries something it's stuff like that.
Tom built or is it Tom created chain registry is a big part of it anyway like you know anyway that repo chain registry just all the Cosmos stuff you need the RPCs seeds of peers.
Yeah, yeah, that was awesome.
Yeah, yeah, that's that's awesome.
That's what you need to you know and I've realized that until I met him in London when I was when I was one of them.
Yeah, when I went to one of the phrase Cosmos entertain education things which is probably by the way.
Yeah, good day.
And they let my stream back home actually.
It's hilarious.
That's the most.
I love the train too.
It does.
Yeah.
So the other thing that so no do you want to talk about could you a little bit?
Well, we've got Kajira and we've got secret to talk about yet and we're starting to run out of time.
So maybe you will touch on.
Yeah, let's go with Kajira.
So Kajira was a project that has moved over to their own chain from from terror.
I believe they were working on in the first place.
So that's where their existing token was and they're migrating it over to their own chain.
So firstly shout out to the devs at Kajira because from day one they had pretty nice apps and UX UI experience.
So congratulations to them for that.
But the reason I wanted to raise Kajira was their rewards model, which is not the same as basically all of the other Cosmos chains out there.
So they don't have inflation.
Their model is what all the other models aim to do in the future, I believe, but they do it straight out of the out of the gate.
So for those who don't know Kajira is a decentralized exchange that uses an order book instead of automated market maker like the rest of the decentralized exchanges or the common decentralized exchange that we see now.
So basically what they're proposing with this network is that the people who are staking to validators are rewarded by a share of the fees from trading only.
So there are no other mechanisms to provide rewards to the the delegators.
So these are produced by when someone makes a transaction, whether it's to put an order or to take an order or using any of the functionality on the decentralized exchange, it comes along with a fee, right?
So there's a maker and a taker fee.
And so these are in different denominations as well.
And they're not necessarily just koogee. So there's fees that are collected in, I think, USDC and I think they're adding, I don't know, Juno and and whatever other.
Yeah, you got a bit on it.
They implemented, I think they're like probably the first ones other than OmniFlix, who have implemented in their UI, having fees in denominations other than their native token.
So I know, for example, that many of the validators on Juno accept fees in USD.
So you're on the sorry, Adam, sorry, they accept fees in Adam, and that's in the standard documentation, but it's not as far as I know implemented in a UI anywhere.
So that is probably a CLI only feature for people who use the command line to make transactions, but it does exist there.
But I think at the moment, koogee are doing it pretty well from that point of view.
So basically anyone who's delegating to a validator as time goes by, they'll just see all these different IBC coins appear in their wallets or appear as rewards, and then they can collect those to their wallets and use them transfer them wherever they want as normal IBC coins.
So absolute nightmare for your tax, but still a good feature in terms of being able to use the functionality of the network, especially when you don't already have native koogee to use as a fee.
So you can send across your Adam and you can make transactions immediately with Adam without having to have any native koogee.
What I do like about it is the fact that there's no need for liquidity pills.
It was designed, you know, Finn was designed on that one thing of other book.
It's something different that you see on the Cosmos. I'm glad that they've come and built on the SDK, obviously, but you know, my first ever really are now is really in Juno and Koogeeira.
They help with Simon, obviously. So it's nice to be part of the really air crew now.
But yeah, interesting project. Being a better market, it's hard to see the volume coming in.
You know, bear market times, it's hard to tell you what's going to happen with some projects, but you know, Hans is one of the best CW devs I've seen, man.
He's unbelievable what he can do as a guy. So we've got a lot of promise and things that will happen with Koogeeira, no doubt, man.
Yeah, we're definitely looking forward to it. Although I don't know. The staking there is another bloody enigma.
To be honest, you can withdraw rewards and re-delegate on most chains in Cosmos and you can have yourself a nice little stack to re-delegate, but Koogeeira is just completely different, man.
You need to know for a start how to operate what IBC transfers to basically execute the SWAT code to transfer all these other rewards back to Koogeeira to re-delegate to yourself.
I mean, if you don't know all that, then you're going to sit there and create a war chest of all these other rewards within your validator and yeah, it's just slightly different.
I wasn't at that point. Yeah, I don't think there's another phase being generated at the moment for you to start seeing the rewards, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I think it will come, man. It will come.
It's only been running for like a couple of weeks. As it gets around and as the token gets a little bit more distributed, because I think the token ownership right now is still quite centralized.
You can tell that from the way that the delegating to nodes is as well. It's incredibly top-heavy at the moment.
Hopefully some more education happens there and they spread that out a little bit. Obviously, we would like to rank well, but we're happy where we are at the moment.
So I think it's definitely something more volume come through.
Yeah, it's interesting to see. It's the first of them. We're seeing like a fee-operated chain where you get rewarded on the fees. That's brilliant.
Something fresh. That's all good.
Anatov.
Now, let's go. I think this is our last topic for the day, unless any of our viewers want to ask some questions.
I think we've been dropping off a few assessments going on to this Tesnet stuff.
In any case, so secret network bringing privacy to other coins.
So I haven't read up on how they're doing this yet and someone else might be able to tell me, but they've added Juno, Stas, Luna and Grav to the coins that are able to be turned into S coins, I believe, and then transferred around without traceability.
So they are also doing an axilla bridge integration, which will bring privacy to other blockchains through the bridge and bridge assets. So this could be interesting.
This sounds like a lavender five conversation, isn't it?
There we go. Life-lapse or a whisper.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I saw that announcement, the bridging piece I can't really talk to on the secret Juno and Stargaze. I actually thought those were already there.
So my bad. I didn't recognize that. So that's cool. I wish I'd be a little bit more involved in secret. We're more of a user than a validator in those types of things, but I don't have too much to say about it overall.
We are an incredibly poorly ranked validator.
Delegate to King Nodes.
Decentralized the network validator.
I delegate to King Nodes and Bootscape.
Nice. Thank you. Thank you for your sacrifice.
It was SG, first of all then, obviously when they announced that they were leaving, I thought, well, there's only so many people I can delegate to after that.
To be fair on secret, I work very hard on trying to mitigate our missed blocks there, even though we make no money. We still try to get the lowest missed block count there that we possibly can, and it's been improving over time.
We're looking pretty good now.
Did it not have a bit of a rally secret coin recently?
You can rally all at once. I've got none of it.
A rally secret doesn't help me one fucking bit.
Silence.
We've got our secret misses down to 19 in 22,500, and we've got our evmos misses down to 23 in 90,000. I know all of you guys probably know that evmos struggle.
No, I've got to bless some fucking sorted mannodes right out.
The boys, he's really good, man. I like what he does.
There was a couple of tweaks I'm happy to share. We used help form the other day as well and instantly stopped missing blocks.
Would they be the peer tweaks?
No, it was more of the when we get the message up.
There's a few buskies I don't want to quote things of this bullshit.
So what is your number one?
Say that again.
I'm looking at PingDot pub at the moment.
I'm coming to the 30 or something like that.
I think most misses here in the hundreds. When you look across the whole set, it's average of hundreds and there's quite a few in the thousands.
It's the amount of traffic on it was to do the snapshot and it was told me accepted to 1500.
Sorry, maybe zero that from 1500 to zero and massively improved it straight away.
Oh, yeah. So the default config for evmos is to have snapshotting.
That's definitely one thing you got to change. I think what mine is no snapshotting. I'm sure you serve as the same.
As soon as I did that and then the pruning started changing it from a rounded number to maybe 29 or whatever you do and then just like so you're not pruning alongside other validators.
It was also a big difference. You can see those prune misses. They come across as big stripes down there.
I did not know anything about it until you know, but that's the community.
If you're using all cracks and you have multiple centuries to have the pruning different on both of them.
So that when you get a prune miss on one, you don't get a prune miss on the other.
It's pretty interesting. These are bigger processes in there, but it doesn't take much for that signature to get missed.
There's such a short window in there that even simple things, not simple things, but prune going on or like you said before, bad persistent peers.
If you've got too many of those, it's easy to get the priorities mixed up in there.
I mean, I'm not a big seed guy. I've always liked to use persistent peers, but lately definitely been getting some better results from using a reliable seed provider instead of peers.
Because these faster networks, if you've got peering timeouts, it just really affects your blocks.
Something that Simon always taught me from day one is like, don't take all the peers, take five, you know, or pretty decent and use that.
And then, you know, your address, but Jason gets bulk from whatever you start on, doesn't it?
Definitely. When we're starting a network, I only pick like three or four peers that I know are solid peers. Like I'll pick, you know, Rhino and Pocachoo and 11 to five.
So I'll pick peers that I know are solid and that won't change.
And you don't need, if you put in 50 peers, you're going to have a bad time.
You're definitely going to have a bad time. So a good trick is to have minimum good peers that you know are going to be peering well to the network, right?
But also increase your incoming and outgoing peers to like 200 and 100, which uses more bandwidth, but it gets you a larger distribution of peers across the network.
So, yeah, obviously, that's always, yeah, that comes with the caveat that you need to have decent internet connectivity and latency for that to work.
Otherwise, if you just set a shitload of peers and you don't have enough bandwidth or low enough latency, you just cut your own throat and start missing everything.
Yeah, I've seen teams get smarter about this too, because like some of the recent tests, not the ones that we talked about here, but before that, like they would post a peer list of like 50 names, right?
Like here's the list of peers. And then in the config, it would be like 30 outbound and or 30 inbound and 10 outbound connections.
So every peer would be full and everybody's putting the same 50 names in there so nobody can get on the network, right?
Yeah. And then say I think when they when they just launched it just now, they skipped I put a seat up, but they just they just actually weighed a little bit and then produce an address book and put an address book up and just said here just use this, which actually is not a bad idea.
Like I had a pretty decent address book as a starting point. And then they also did I think 150 inbound 150 outbound peers as a default.
Like it's shipped with that out of the out of the test that structure. So no matter what if you got if you got a name you're in like if you got an actual port because there are so many open spots, which for a test that is a really good idea.
I think in main that you kind of agree 150 150 it becomes a problem.
One problem with doing the address book thing that they did was that again you can end up with a lot of connections on those address peers. You can it when people do that they don't put in seeds and peers into their config because you don't actually need them if you've got an address book that's already populated right.
So I think that they're booting up methodology didn't include putting peers and seats. So if you have an issue or you have previously tried to run the network right with like the wrong genesis or something like that.
And then you do an unsafe reset. A lot of people won't know that that will piss off the address book and you'll have to go down again or reinstated.
So a lot of people just weren't getting connections the network because they had done something that deleted the address book after they had placed it there.
And then it is like this sitting here you know dialing no peers for three hours.
Well because you haven't said any peers.
Because yeah I got quite recently I had that. Is that what Simon's talking so much. I've got a lot of problems that I just bounce off Simon to be honest.
It used to be you know. I see an advantage of having a team. A team helps you. So. On a closing note for a once man you know I've been there from day one you know was my first network to validate on you know.
Everybody's showing me how to get on the things and that's how I met Simon. That's how I met other people. But we just wanted to transfer that standard of education from the top to bottom down to new people moving on to the network
and trying to adjust the you know crazy government's proposals all links together man. But we should set the standard going forward and good validators like us should portray that image going forward.
You know there's a line of there's a level of standard needs to be set to be a validator in this network and we should just reiterate that all the way down.
That's what I'm doing this for now really. It's a cycle.
Definitely looking forward to reading some of your content man.
And I think it'll be someone else that writes it not me for sure.
I think we have we have a few planned articles for the game of nodes medium as well about security and stuff. But I think we have been distracted by other things.
But as a as a conglomerate. I think we intend to produce a few articles in there.
Yes.
If we ever if we ever stop talking about governance.
Yeah man.
And up back governments but I think our first I think I was going to collaborate with lavender on node hardening.
I think was our first one for starting off hardening security because it's definitely very easy things you can do to to harden your nodes which is becoming less and less relevant for your actual centuries and more and more relevant for
your signers.
So I'm leaning away from hard security on on centuries just because they're becoming disposable.
Yep.
Anyway, I think we've just about exhausted our topics for the day and I think we're probably been here long enough that we won't run through what we're excited about this week.
So I'm ready to sign off usurper. What do you think me see you see you next week.
Thank you.
Simon good coming on.
Have you guys signed again.
Yeah.
It's been too long.
She said month.
Nice.
See ya.