[PROPOSAL #][DRAFT] Gaia v8-Rho Upgrade

2022-05-16 Initial proposal for comment

Upgrade Cosmos Hub to Gaia v8-Rho

Summary

This is a place holder proposal to begin discussion about the Rho upgrade prior to release of software and on-chain proposal. Until the proposal is created I will put the outline of the roadmap with proposed features included in this upgrade so discussion can happen below.

v8-Rho Upgrade (expected Q2 2022)

  • Gaia v8.0.x
  • Cosmos SDK v0.46
    • Groups module:
      • Enables higher-level multisig permissioned accounts, e.g., weight-based voting policies
    • Meta-Transactions
      • Allows messages to be submitted by separate accounts that receive tips for doing so.
    • Gov Module Improvements
      • Execution of arbitrary transactions instead of just governance proposals.
      • Enables much more expressive governance module.
  • Tendermint v0.35
    • Mempool Transaction Prioritization
    • Lib P2P
  • IBC 3.1.0
    • Relayer Incentivisation so that IBC packets contain fees to pay for relayer costs.
  • Interchain Account Message Authorization Module
    • Authentication module that authorizes any Account to create an Interchain Account on any IBC connected “Host” blockchain that has the Interchain Account IBC module.
    • Accounts can be private key controlled users, and eventually the Gov Module and any Groups Module.
  • Budget Module (stretch-goal)
    • Inflation funding directed to arbitrary module and account addresses
  • Global Fee Module (stretch-goal)
    • Allows denoms and min-fees to be governance parameters so gas can be paid in various denoms.
    • Visible on tgrade already and enabled in ante.go
  • Bech32 Prefix forwarding (stretch-goal)
  • IBC Msg Whitelist to skip MinFee in CheckTX
4 Likes

It looks good billy.

I really do want to get another chain under your purview though. Other than 69 you’ve done a fine job as hub lead-- Gaia’s codebase shrunk and efficiency improved.

I really spent a lot of time on this matter. I have looked it up and down and left and right and backwards and forwards and I have come to the strong conclusion that it actually does make sense to have a CW enabled hub. It’s just that the CW enabled hub should not be Gaia. The CW enabled hub needs a name and it might be nice if its name is the same as its token to prevent the atom/cosmoshub/gaia naming debacle from playing out again. I want its supply to be exactly the same as Gaia’s. No one can be cut out of this or the chain loses its purpose.

The query features in CW are hotter than fire. During the lengthy debate on CW on the hub, I was definitely swayed by the people supporting CW on the hub that it can be used to create compelling stuff. However, I have to say that my position actually move closer to Jae’s, for Gaia herself.

Please help. Specifically, help comes in the form of the Interchain Foundation taking a position on this matter.

Also a name for the new chain, which is also the name for its primary denom, would be nice, I haven’t come up with one yet.

The chain I’m proposing here:

  • Makes CW a first class citizen and features permissioned CW
  • Uses SDK 46
  • Allows the lido thing
  • creates resilience by replicating the financial io port features of the cosmos hub.
  • recognizes the very real changes in how cosmos chains are being developed, and responds appropriately

Unnamed chain vs Juno

Some people seem to immediately jump to hey why do we have unnamed chain if we already have Juno?

Well, *chain would feature permissioned CW.

It is curated by its governance. Whereas, as a validator on Juno, I actively attempt to protect the ability of anyone, anywhere, to deploy anything onto Juno. I think that is the purpose of Juno gov.

This analogy is getting really tiresome and difficult to engage with, Jacob.

I take it in good faith because I don’t think you intend for this to be anything more than a funny way of talking about bloated code and minimalism. Speaking about a codebase as though it’s a woman who needs to lose weight is pretty distasteful and unprofessional. This is a space where women exist and (likely) are not interested in a comparison between a(n allegedly) feature-bloated blockchain and their real, physical bodies which already face plenty of media pressure to look and present a particular way.

1 Like

Hi, I refer to gaia as female, due to her name.

I am sorry that you find the analogy tiresome, and will modify my content.

I will continue to refer to gaia as female, due to her name.

Can we please discuss the matter at hand?

If you feel very strongly about gendering the codebase, then I strongly suggest a gov prop to change the name of the github repository.

Do you work for the interchain foundation, and/or have you received any compensation from them?

Given that I strongly wish to focus discussion on the actual issues at hand, I am modifying the original github issue on Gaia’s codebase and per your request shall no longer speak of Hub performance in terms of weight or fatness.

Again, now that I have modified my phrasing, I truly hope that we can focus the remainder of the conversation on the actual set of issues at hand, like:

https://forum.cosmos.network/t/interchain-foundation-severe-delinquencies/6590/2

Thank you.

NB: I have removed every instance of phrasing that refers to Gaia as fat from this forum, authored by me. I cannot edit others posts.

I’ll take it in good faith that this isn’t the beginning of an ad-hominem campaign against me because I am pointing out icf delinquencies, which I think are far more serious than my phrasing, don’t you?

I have frequently noted that one way to do politics, when information doesn’t support your point of view, is to attack the opposing side’s … person, or otherwise shift the focus of discussion.

https://forum.cosmos.network/t/interchain-foundation-severe-delinquencies/6590/2

I feel that it’s much more unprofessional, and distasteful to harm the cosmos hub’s competitiveness than to use an analogy to describe issues facing Gaia.

Just as you’ve steered me in the more “professional” course, I do hope that you’ll join me in advocating that the ICF behave as “professionals”.