Ethereum is again at a familiar junction.
As the price of its cryptocurrency ether skyrocketed (then corrected) in 2018, one thing remained constant: users continue to lose money because of hackers, faulty codes and of human errors. This is a question that once divided the platform into rival forces and left lingering debates – a sd, as Recent Activity ] on GitHub exhibitions,
The resurgence of a chat channel created as a result of the loss of 513,000 ether by starting parity l & # Last year revived the controversy. In particular, the forum relaunched with the publication of a sketch for how fundraising proposals could be standardized to make them easier to implement. .
This is the second major action that the assembled developers have taken after suggesting several changes to the ethereum software – all of which have been hotly rejected by users.
Led by developer Dan Phifer of Musiconomi (an ICO emitter that saw 16,475 ether lost in the parity gel) and two developers of a startup called Tap Trust, the document offers a way to facilitate the implementation of customers called status changes, or system-wide upgrades that would require all users to upgrade their software to versions reflecting redistributed fund balances.
Yet, some disagree with the fact that such a mechanism is necessary, even going as far as to suggest that the idea is at odds with the ethics that guide the second plus big blockchain protocol of the world.
Already rejected by ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin, the famous developer Yoichi Hirai and the founder of Oaken Innovations, Hudson Jameson – three of the six who run the ethereum repository and thus have the power to light up green lights on the platform.
Hirai, for example, argued that the proposal is "at odds with the ethereal philosophy," asserting in a blog post that he "is not going to move a finger" for such changes.
Similarly, Alex Van de Sande, the founder of the Mist navigator of the Ethereum, writes on Github that the changes required to return lost funds should be "rare and increasingly exceptional".
However, such sentiments contrast sharply with developers who recommend the standard, like Parity's Afri Schoeden, who told CoinDesk:
"Changes of state are not a bad precedent, they show that we are a working platform capable of healing wounds."
Revealing old scars
All this controversy dates back to the hacking of DAO 2016 which saw 3.6 million of ether – $ 2.6 billion at today's prices – drawn from users' portfolios by a person exploiting a loophole in the code.
In response, the developers implemented an update that reversed the CAD theft, although a large group of community members was against the idea. Due to the stormy debate around the philosophy, a group of enthusiasts even forked to the Ethereum to create a competing cryptocurrency, the ethereum classic, now valued at $ 1.7 billion.
This event "has left many scars, a divided community and talking points that Aethereans detractors seem to want to point to forever," Van de Sande told CoinDesk.
When the parity feat occurred, the tensions surrounding the problem reappeared.
Although Parity quickly proposed a solution, it required all users to update their software again, and many people criticized the decision. Joining the discussion was a rain of voices that felt "no fork" should occur, with fervor echoing the infighting of the previous year.
However, while the DAO fork has pushed many ethereum developers to err on the side of caution, others maintain a more liberal approach.
As Schoeden tells CoinDesk:
"I think a lot of people are scared of the repercussions after the hard fork of DAO That caused a lot of bad press, but honestly, it was a good move, it showed that the ethereum community is not stubborn. "the code is the law", but rather able to act quickly. "
Simply, not so simple
Nevertheless, some believe that it is useful to consider all options, and the new proposal promises that the return of funds could be achieved in a simpler way, involving both affected organizations and known influencers and of confidence.
Subsequent comments, however, turned out to be a lightning rod because they are perceived as encouraging a centralized management method.
In response to the statement, Hirai wrote on Github:
"The authors are always looking for a certain class of people capable of making judgments: they are looking for authorities … unique chess points and the need for trust [is] that is experiencing the ethereum. "
Hirai continued in a blog post, saying that it is his personal belief that "every user of the ethereum is responsible for their use of the ethereum."
As such, the funds lost on the platform should be offset by donations, rather than by changes to the ethereum software itself, he continued.
Discussion on the thread Github reflects the conservatism of Hirai. There, Van de Sande warned that, if the standard for the recovery of funds is deemed in good faith, it could be subject to corruption, bribes and "a system that can be terribly abused later. "
Means of subsistence on the line
Yet in the same vein, questions have emerged as to whether developers who have spoken out against the proposal have the power to actually block change before it is put to users.
Schoeden argues that Hirai's refusal to allow users to consider the code is a "conflict of interest", highlighting how personalities already strongly influence development decisions.
Ethereum developer, Nick Johnson, who also appears on the list of ethereum publishers, took a similar position when writing about a subject:
"The role of editors here is not to determine which queries should be included in the string, but simply which queries pass the bar of factual accuracy."
Elsewhere, a prominent voice behind the proposed change, Musicifer Phifer, urged the community to accept the risk of recovery when there is "no perceptible inconvenience" and the loss impacts businesses and means subsistence of users. He added that the problem of the loss of funds would only worsen as the adoption continues to grow, which would put a strain on the nascent network.
Phifer is not alone in his perspective there.
Although DAO hacking and parity freezing include some of the most high-profile incidents, cases of loss of funds among users would be relatively common.
A typo in a wallet address could permanently remove funds, and attacks on insecure smart contracts are quite common (litecoin creator Charlie Lee went so far as to call a hacker's haven in a conversation with CoinDesk last year).
Responding to the need to update the code in response to errors, Schoeden stated:
"Ethereum is not a static construct, Ethereum is what we want it to be, it's always a process, a transition and that includes discussions, and yes, this includes conflict resolution, always consensus. "
Shredded Money Image via Shutterstock