governance VS gaia

Proposal#56: Github • Proposal • Twitter

There's also a recent proposal to include an IBC packet routing feature from u/jackzampolin that should go onto the hub soon: https://github.com/cosmos/governance/pull/46. This would make it easier to use the Hub as a router, on of the strongest and earliest uses for the Cosmos Hub. As the author of the go relayer and a relayer himself, Jack knows that it's easier for relayers to operate between one network and the hub at a time, compared to running relayers between every single network. Today there are only a handful of live networks using IBC so the latter scenario is still possible. However it may be important to set the precedent that all IBC packet routing should go through the hub to ensure it continues to be the case as the number of IBC connected networks grows. This new feature allows a single IBC transaction to result in multiple hops through the Hub to a destination chain.

This is an explicit point of the Gravity bridge design. Described here in the proposal.

Cosmos Hub Validators can get up to speed with the upgrade process : HERE

Follow the development: HERE

https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/branches/active

You for example go to the official source repository of cosmos, which is https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/releases, and get the official CLI client. You can use that to create a AUTHZ transaction which you sign on your ledger. It’s the same transaction you can sign with yieldmos or RestakeApp and Keplr as soon as the UI is updated. It’s just a limitation in the UI that we need to use the CLI for now. You never enter your seed in the CLI if you use a ledger.

If you’re talking specifically about the “Composable Parachain”, the Cosmos equivalent is Interchain Security which is set to launch imminently https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/blob/main/docs/interchain-security.md

Cosmos is actually one of the harder chains to validate because of its heavier system requirements (https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/issues/704), and since it doesn't enforce any minimum commission rates, so validators are pushed to offer lower (even negative!) rates to attract delegations to stand out in this relatively large 175 active set.

for over six months I have been reporting that there are issues with interchain foundation delegations on the cosmos hub. Trying to report this has led to retaliation-- the first person I reported this to was Billy, and he attempted to use the contributors covenant (contributorcovenant.org) to remove me from cosmos during proposal 69. He said I tweeted too much. To the best of my knowledge I'm the sole validator trying (https://github.com/cosmos/gaia/pulls) to make code contributions to the hub.

I recommend reading the Interchain Security Litepaper for more info on V1-3, and the rationale behind some design decisions.

Cosmos Hub Bloat: Fat Gaia by Jacob Gadikian, Notional Validator The main bloat here comes from future dapps that have been approved by governance. The extra load on the Hub would increase the RAM usage, upkeep cost, and system requirements for validators Could possibly increase barrier to entry for new/independent validators

I learned about what I said in #3 from a short discussion with one of the devs. More generally, here's the interchain security litepaper.