Laika - A perpetual Testchain / onboarding opportunity

You’re welcome to believe that and live the consequences of it. I’m not gonna be limited by your lack of initiative and creativity.

“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”

My fault, should never have engaged the troll.

"Im being creative and taking the initiative.

Let’s part from the axiom that money doesn’t grow in trees and the highly improbable outcome of TF or private individuals funding this with donations.

I propose, to shutdown LB and redirect that tax of 0.3% annual inflation to fund Perpetual Test Net.

We would be getting much more value out of
funding the PTNet than funding LB that is more than obvious by now that we are not getting any value from LB.

Just don’t fund both things with inflation, because that would be too much fiscal pressure on everyone’s bags.

Just to compare and give some perspective, if we fund LB and PTNET with 0.3% annual tax (a total of 0.6% annual tax) that would be too much fiscal pressure for a cryptocurrency. In perspective Texas property tax is about 1.8% annually.

So, the idea, is to shutdown LB and take that same tax funding to fund PTNET. Or wait with crossed arms until TF finally decides to stop being miserable. Basically 90% of TF grants are funding nomadic labs, which is more than obvious by now that NL is TF same people."

Don’t use my thread for your inane “tax” rambling, take it to your own post.

Please stop censoring my messages, you already have fame as a censurer, you are a mod in all tezos channels, and you can’t have the monopoly of communications. I will keep posting my opinion in all the threads you start in this forum, this should be a public space free of censorship, now if you excuse me I will quote what you deleted:

Im being creative and taking the initiative.

Let’s part from the axiom that money doesn’t grow in trees and the highly improbable outcome of TF or private individuals funding this with donations.

I propose, to shutdown LB and redirect that tax of 0.3% annual inflation to fund Perpetual Test Net.

We would be getting much more value out of
funding the PTNet than funding LB that is more than obvious by now that we are not getting any value from LB.

Just don’t fund both things with inflation, because that would be too much fiscal pressure on everyone’s bags.

Just to compare and give some perspective, if we fund LB and PTNET with 0.3% annual tax (a total of 0.6% annual tax) that would be too much fiscal pressure for a cryptocurrency. In perspective Texas property tax is about 1.8% annually.

So, the idea, is to shutdown LB and take that same tax funding to fund PTNET. Or wait with crossed arms until TF finally decides to stop being miserable. Basically 90% of TF grants are funding nomadic labs, which is more than obvious by now that NL is TF same people.

LB is funded by an inflationary tax, perpetual test chain can also be funded that way. LB will NOT give any value to tezos until USDC is here, in the meantime let’s shut down LB and fund perpetual test chain with the same 0.3% annual inflationary tax that is being used to fund LB.

My apologies for not having responded to this months ago.

The proposal testnets (such as Florencenet and Granadanet) are upgraded before mainnet. The transition from Florence to Granada in particular was tested on the Granadanet.
What is special about the testnet being permanent? How would this help detecting these kinds of issues?

At the time of this original post, I was not aware of that. Now I see the value here in a perp-testnet, being the community as a whole and bakers more prepared for what to expect. Also, it serves as a redundancy and extra testing on a network with organic activity.

How does this differ from the current situation? Testnet tokens are worthless because you can get them for free at the faucet.

This is more for a perpetual testnet being less of an accounting burden for people to play and learn on and so that it is not a competitor with the mainnet.

Not exactly, they start on the predecessor protocol precisely because we also want to test the migration. They migrate in the early days of the testnet, usually through an on-chain vote.

Thank you for the correction.

It is just very simple, let’s tax print some XTZ to fund perpetual testnet. Don’t rely on TF because we will never get anything from them, NEVER. The only ones who get something from TF are nomadic labs and the salary of Jarrod.

They way I imagine it is that, first we give people realistic expectations. Warn them that the testnet is testing a proposal and that things might be rolled back so no transactions done in that time period are guaranteed.

Before testing the proposal we take a snapshot. If the upgrade goes smooth and the proposal is adopted by the mainnet. No worries. If the proposal breaks the testnet, or the proposal is not adopted by the mainnet, we revert to the snapshot.

Sure, this means practice/play activity on the testnet may not be perpetual, but… how often has a proposal broken mainnet or failed a stage of voting. Not saying this cannot or will not happen but it is unlikely. …and… if something is to be broken, it should be the perpetual testnet.

Edo was replaced by edo2 3 days before mainnet upgrade. Reverting from a snapshot feels hard to coordinate. Upgrading the testnet very shortly before mainnet will make this scenario less likely to happen.

1 Like

Ideally, the plan would be to test the dominant ( or the one willing to pay the most (at the discretion of the testnet) ) proposal, on the testnet, before it is even voted on.

I agree a network wide snapshot rollback would be a headache to coordinate, but since a testnet need not be decentralized, i think there are steps we can take here to mitigate that. For example the majority of the baking would be handled by official Laika nodes. Beyond that, we could have people baking over a certain amount need to agree to handle these kinds of situations.

In the beginning Laika should be robust and reliable even if all the non-offical / volunteer participants on the network are not.