Kulupu core developer Tang Wei, chain news author Xiao Maoge, Maizi Wallet PM Lu Yaoyuan discussed Kulupu on-chain governance issues with the Satoshi community Damai.
On August 28th, Jubi Labs invited Kulupu’s core developer Wei Tang, chain news author Xiao Maoge, wheat wallet PM Lu Yaoyuan, and Mamoto Satoshi community member Damai to conduct an AMA to discuss the recent fire in the Boka ecological pearl Kulupu. The event was hosted by Jubi Labs and co-organized by Lianwen, Maizi Wallet, D1 Ventures and Satoshi Mamoto. Link Wen compiled the wonderful dialogue of the event, Enjoy!
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Dear fans of the Polkadot and Kulupu communities, hello everyone!
To introduce myself, I am the initiator of Jubi Labs, Fan Fan. I have been exposed to digital currency for 15 years and joined Jubi full-time in 16 years. Today’s theme is “Kulupu, Polkadot Ecological BCH+BSV” , as the name suggests, I want to talk to you about Polkadot’s on-chain governance issues .
Before the chat, please introduce yourself to the three old faces of the Polkadot community. The one with the most coins will start first, and you will come first, Lao Lu.
Lu Yaoyuan: Hello, everyone. I am Lao Lu, PM of Maizi Wallet. I chase and follow opportunities that most people have not noticed. I am also learning Polkadot and Kulupu recently.
Damai: Hello, everyone. I am Damai, a member of the Satoshi Mamoto community. Satoshi Mamoto is mainly concerned about industry trends and emerging projects. Thank you for inviting to participate in this event!
Brother Mao Mao: Hello, everyone, I am Brother Xiao Mao , the author of the chain, and I am studying DeFi, Staking and PoW. Thank you for your invitation. complete.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Back to today’s theme, “Kulupu, BCH+BSV of Polkadot”, do you think it is accurate to describe Kulupu this way? What role does Kulupu play in the Polkadot ecology? It’s better for Lu Yaoyuan to come first.
Lu Yaoyuan : It is estimated that you have read the story about Kulupu in the past few days. Gavin said that we can use Substrate to write a PoW chain. Wei Tang wrote some consensus core codes based on the Substrate framework, and then the history of the blockchain The first PoW chain governed by the chain was born.
This is how I understand this point of view. For Bitcoin, Kulupu is a Bitcoin fork of the Polkadot ecology. In terms of Polkadot ecology, Kulupu is the existence of Bitcoin in the Polkadot ecosystem.
A PoW public chain that has been running for a year and is based on Substrate. It has been a public chain in the Polkadot ecology from its birth, and plays the role of a POW template public chain in the Polkadot ecology.
It is understood that there will be many PoW public chains developed based on Substrate in the future, and they will all develop rapidly by learning from Kulupu’s growth experience.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: So fast, I haven’t finished digesting yet, Barley, you continue.
Damai: I don’t know about BCH and BSV, and I don’t know how they are on the roadmap at this stage, but I feel that the “BCH + BSV” Meme emphasizes Kulupu’s PoW consensus
The official website says that Kulupu is a proof of work blockchain with on-chain governance and online upgrade.
I think the information on the official website emphasizes: PoW, and on-chain governance, from these two points, it may be more similar to Decred (DCR); Kulupu also has improvements or slight differences compared to Decred, such as the Substrate framework. Voluntary taxation and community governance fund pools, etc. If Decred aims to become a better currency, I think Kulupu is actually more inclined to become a functional platform with smart contract functions and interoperability with the Polkadot ecosystem.
However, based on its token economic model, the article written by Lianwen Xiaomao also mentioned that its effective supply is limited to 21 million, so it may also have attributes such as valuable storage.
As for the role of Kulupu in the Polkadot ecology, I think this is a very interesting exploration. Some people have doubts about the degree of decentralization of the PoS consensus and think that they may move towards oligarchy. The combination of PoW consensus and the Substrate framework can See what chemistry will happen
At the same time, its roadmap also mentions sharing security and interoperability with other PoW chains, which may bring a lot of imagination.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: I saw a saying that Kulupu is to Decred, like Polkadot is to Cosmos. I will discuss it with you later. Brother Mao, what do you think?
Xiao Maoge Mao: From the perspective of the media, this sentence should be used as a slogan for publicity projects. But whether it is accurate or not depends on the acceptance of community members. My understanding: This sentence actually refers to the historical origin of BCH and BSV, but focuses on reflecting and highlighting the characteristics of Kulupu’s “on-chain governance upgrade”.
Regarding the role of this project, what I wrote in the article is: unique + interesting attempts; if the community continues to grow and the scale of governance continues to expand, it may become an indispensable project not only in Polkadot, but in the entire PoW field. .
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Please be a little slower, the guests have not finished digesting. The second question: Kulupu focuses on “fork-free upgrades” that combine POW with on-chain governance. Bitcoin Core’s soft fork proposal back then also had similar propositions. What is the difference between the two?
Lu Yaoyuan: Fork-free upgrade is one of the characteristics of Polkadot’s ecological public chain. Once upgraded, it will be an incompatible upgrade.
The fork of Bitcoin does not require the consent of the holders. Anyone can initiate a fork of Bitcoin. The consensus formed is directly related to the initiator. However, the Polkadot ecological public chain is voted on through governance and the majority agrees. Once you decide to upgrade, the nodes that are not upgraded will not be able to synchronize and will be disconnected, and you can only access the upgraded public chain version by upgrading.
Maizi Wallet has gone through more than ten stages of Kusama upgrade and Polkadot, so it has accumulated a lot of experience in the upgrade of the Polkadot ecological public chain.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: OK, Polkadot’s no-fork upgrade is an overall behavior, and it is an irreversible advancement for the agreement. Next, barley.
Damai: Not the same. Soft forks put more emphasis on functionality or forward compatibility with historical ledgers. The relevant participants are miners, nodes, and developers; but on-chain governance such as Kulupu emphasizes “governance”, which means it is related. The proposal is to be widely discussed, recognized and accepted, and the participants additionally include ordinary users.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Okay, what about Brother Mao?
Xiaomao Brother Mao: “Can it be interpreted as similar to the Bitcoin Core soft fork proposal?”
If you have to understand it this way, you can indeed highlight the importance of blockchain governance and the development and exploration process of governance. I think the difference lies in the early exploration of blockchain project governance based on off-chain and the current exploration of on-chain governance.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Kulupu’s governance system is determined by voting by currency holders. Is it possible to achieve “fork-free upgrade”? Under this governance model, under what circumstances may cause the network to inevitably split?
Lu Yaoyuan: Fork-free upgrades are determined by the characteristics of Polkadot. Governance is a process for deciding whether to upgrade. Bitcoin forks do not need to go through the governance process.
Whether the Proposal before Polkadot ecological public chain governance enters the voting stage still needs to be approved by the council, so the entire governance process is not arbitrary and willful governance, but the council determines some feasibility and then throws it out to the currency holder The user makes the choice.
Once the governance process is passed, it represents the consensus and willingness of most people, so no fork escalation will occur. If a small portion of the computing power that does not agree forcibly forks a new public chain, then the forked “Kulupu” public chain will be extremely fragile and will eventually return to the main chain.
In fact, many people are also concerned about the Kulupu PoW mining problem. It uses the RandomX algorithm, which is similar to Monero and is more friendly to AMD’s CPU. For more mining tutorials, please refer to this article .
At the same time, the computing power of the entire network has also increased sharply, and the cost of mining has continued to increase.
According to the roadmap, after the Red Gate is opened, a mining tax will be considered, initially 0%
According to the plan, after the 200,000 block height, the block reward will be halved, one block per minute, and there will be about 27 days to reach the height.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Focus on it. It is still the first stage of the first phase, and there are 27 days left.
Lu Yaoyuan : Including the total amount of Kulupu, the upper limit of the design will not exceed 210M. Actually it may be 100-150M. These will be decided by voting through governance. So far, 2850k KLP has been dug up.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: proposal-council-holders voting, can be understood as democratic centralism haha. Also note that it is 60-54, and the vote has passed. Barley, how about you?
Damai: Iterative Capital wrote an in-depth paper “What is the nature of the cryptocurrency phenomenon?” “, tells about the “delicate balance of terror” under the rule of the miners in the PoW consensus and the “unstructured tyranny” under the rule of the core developers, pointing out that the excessive concentration of the rights of miners and developers will affect the entire network. This article is very good Recommended reading.
In theory, if miners, developers, and users cannot reach a consensus on a certain aspect, the network may split.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Views on the issue of division. Brother Mao, it’s you.
Xiao Maoge Mao: The governance model of all blockchain projects is under exploration. I understand the term “fork-free upgrade”. There should be no traditional so-called forked chains and forked coins, but it is necessary to ensure that the blockchain network achieves self-evolution, self-upgrade, and community consensus through a certain process. A virtuous circle of expansion.
Parameter governance should be able to cover most of the usual governance upgrade needs, avoiding the so-called community division. Under normal circumstances, network upgrade governance can be met, unless extreme situations such as security issues, attacks, or deliberate splits occur.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: OK, the next question is, under the framework of Substrate, the Kulupu network is regarded as a test network for Polkadot ecology. Will its PoW governance ideas have any reference for Polkadot’s NPoS consensus maintenance?
Lu Yaoyuan : PoW and NPoS are the difference between the network consensus mechanism. The governance by computing power and the governance by holding coins are two different things. Any network has only benefits and costs, and it may be attacked and split. Ideas are not a problem, interests will cause conflicts between miners and coin holders.
Computing power is the moat of PoW, and the coin-holding nodes and NPoS election mechanism are also the moat of the Polkadot consensus. If the fragile network has the opportunity to generate enough benefits, someone will attack to earn this part of the income. Attack/fork is the freedom of the blockchain.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Okay, Barley.
Damai: I don’t understand this question. Look at Teacher Lu and Brother Xiao Mao.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Brother Mao, it’s up to you.
Xiao Maoge Mao: Regarding the difference between NPoS and PoW, Mr. Lu explained it very clearly. The points I have seen include the clear and clear classification of governance modules in Kulupu’s block explorer. The user experience is still very good, and governance participation can be increased. degree.
Regarding the proposition of the idea of ​​splitting, if this proposition is true, then the person must be a very influential person.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Okay, next question.
Speaking of split, the Polkadot network is still in its infancy. According to your speculation, what kind of people will have the motivation to split the Polkadot network? When will it develop to what stage will it face the issue of upgrading its governance mechanism? When will that day come? Will there be any obvious signals?
Lu Yaoyuan: Individuals cannot predict the problems facing Polkadot’s governance, so they can’t judge the signal. So far, this governance model is working well.
What Maizi Wallet (completed supporting Kulupu public chain) can do is to provide everyone with convenient governance tools, so that everyone can participate in Polkadot ecological governance. In the near future, Maizi Wallet will launch Kulupu public chain governance tools so that everyone can easily participate. In Kulupu governance, your vote may also affect the development of the public chain.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: This answer, I didn’t guess the ending. Barley, you come.
Damai: Maybe the signal is that everyone is starting to question the current governance system?
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: So simple! Does Mao Mao have a different opinion?
Xiao Maoge Mao: As mentioned in the previous answer, the proposition about the idea of ​​splitting, if this proposition is true, then this person must be a very influential person. There is also a conflict of interest, which should be no more than this scope.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: OK, the last question is for the three card dealers to evaluate the value of Kulupu. How much is it worth?
Lu Yaoyuan: As a currency holder, I must be bullish. Whether Kusama is the reference target or BTC is the reference target, it depends on everyone’s dream.
In the short term, the spread is not far-reaching enough, and more people need to understand it to discover it. The stimulus of halving and a clear economic model also allow kulupu to continue its development. In the medium term, Actor based smart contracts are backed by Polkadot. Ecology and strong support of Maizi Wallet infrastructure will make Kulupu go further.
At least Kulupu is still in the early stage of value discovery, and Jubi Smart Eyes is uniquely able to detect and pay attention to Kulupu early, which is also very good!
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Damai, how about the position? How to view value? How much is it worth?
Barley: Calculated based on the largest total of 21 million KLP, if it develops well, it should not be a problem to enter the top 100 market capitalization; then slightly adjust according to the fundamentals such as short-term popularity, liquidity, and computing power.
I have too few positions and I snapped my thigh.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Xiao Mao, as a senior Kulupu author, how about you?
Xiao Maoge Mao: I participated in representing the media today. I cannot answer this question.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Finally, we invite our heavy and mysterious guest of this AMA, Wei Tang, the contributor of Kulupu core code!
On the one hand, a fork can be a threat and a political means; on the other hand, it can also be a means of resolving differences. What do you think of the pros and cons of forks?
Tang Wei: I think the advantage of on-chain governance is that it can give all participants an objective reference. This reference allows us to understand at least in some respects whether a proposal really gets the most support. If a proposal is supported by a majority, then on-chain governance also provides clear standards and rules to ensure that the proposal can proceed.
In my opinion, the issue of blockchain governance is not “whether or not to fork”, but “whether objective reference exists”. For some blockchains, the latter’s answer is not clear. When this leads to disagreements, the community’s solution becomes “the louder wins.” Some proposals may not really receive the majority of support, but because the proponents have the resources, everyone has to follow the proposals when they lack objective references. And such a disagreement resolution method of “the louder side wins” is unhealthy.
On-chain governance does not exclude forks. In fact, in the early days of the Kulupu blockchain, based on the current on-chain governance model, one of the discussed governance models used in additional situations was “voluntary fork”. The implementation method of this model is to allow clients to voluntarily choose whether to follow the current on-chain voting governance model. If some clients still maintain a strong opposition to a certain proposal, they can choose to voluntarily leave the current on-chain voting governance model and fork a new chain. Whether Kulupu needs this additional “voluntary fork” governance model is still under discussion in the community.
Another unsolved problem with traditional fork governance is that the client must be updated every time a fork. This gives developers disproportionate voting rights. Whether it is Kulupu’s current on-chain voting governance model or an additional “voluntary fork” governance model, with the help of the Substrate framework, this problem has been well resolved. With the exception of consensus algorithms, most of the on-chain proposals, client updates are not necessary. Of course, as a developer, I still hope that everyone can update the client version in time. Every update has bug fixes, new features and performance improvements.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: The governance model of voluntary forks, we will discuss later, the last question of this AMA. From Bitcoin, Ethereum, to Polkadot, are there so-called boundaries for public chain governance? Where does Kulupu go next?
Tang Wei: Public chain governance in a narrow sense only includes content running on the chain. But in my opinion, the boundaries of governance are blurred. Because a lot of content that is not running on the chain will affect or even determine the choice on the chain. This is why Kulupu’s major task now is to develop and build communities.
Kulupu will implement all content related to “signature mining” in the near future, and at the same time will focus on improving the community and client performance. In the mid-term, we hope to complete the implementation of the Actor-based smart contract. On-chain governance is a core function of Kulupu. Currently, it is running pretty well-the community is developing in a healthy way. In the future, I also hope that Kulupu can become one of the benchmarks of on-chain governance in the Proof of Work (PoW) blockchain.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: What is the current size and distribution of Kulupu’s community? Are there any special plans for expanding consensus and community development?
Tang Wei: We have attracted many contributors, and Kulupu’s progress today cannot be achieved without their help. In addition, we have recently received support from some colleagues in Parity and Web3, and they continue to provide valuable opinions on Kulupu’s development work.
FAN FAN@Jubi Labs: Indeed, I believe that Kulupu’s contribution to governance issues will not only bring a brand new impact to Polkadot but also to the entire blockchain ecosystem.
Tang Wei: There is no panacea for community development, it can only be done step by step. In addition, everyone is welcome to join our Discord or Matrix community to participate in the discussion of Kulupu development!
