Ethereum Users Are Losing Money and Devs Don't Quite Know What to Do

Ethereum is again at a familiar junction.

While the price of its cryptocurrency (19459005) skyrocketed (then corrected) in 2018, one thing remained constant: users continue to lose money because of hackers , erroneous codes and human errors. This is a problem that once divided the platform into rival forces and left debates – nd, as Recent Activity on the GitHub shows, the tensions intensify again

The new life of the debate is the resurgence of a channel of discussion created as a result of the loss of 513,000 ether by Parity startup last year. In particular, the forum revived 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 took after suggesting several changes to the ethereum software – which were all strongly rejected by users.

Led by developer Dan Phifer of Musiconomi (an ICO transmitter who saw 16,475 lost etheric in the parity freeze) and two developers of a startup called Tap Trust, the paper provides a way to facilitate Ethereum customers must implement what are 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 disagrees with ethics that guides 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 turn on green lights on the platform.

Hirai, for example, argued that the proposal is "at odds with the ethereal philosophy," stating 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, such as Afri Schoeden of Parity, 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 2016 DAO which saw 3.6 million of ether – worth $ 2.6 billion at current prices – drawn from the portfolios of users by a person exploiting a flaw in the code.

In response, the developers implemented an update that reversed the DAO flight, although a significant group of community members were 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 exploit occurred, the tensions surrounding the problem reappeared.

Although Parity was quick to come up with a solution, it required all users to update their software again, and many people criticized the move . Joining the discussion was a rain of voice who felt that "no fork" should occur, with fervor echoing the fight against infighting the year before.

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 Aethereal community is not stubborn. "the code is the law", but rather able to act quickly. "

Simply, not so simple

Still, some believe that it is worth considering all the options, and the new proposal promises that the returns could be made in a simpler way, involving both the organizations affected and known influencers and trusted.

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:

"Authors are always looking for a certain class of people capable of judging, they seek authorities … unique chess points and the need for trust [is] that the ethereum is trying to avoid. "

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."

And 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 Github thread 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 effectively 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 editors of the ethereum, 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 minimal 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 paradise in a conversation with CoinDesk last year).

Responding to the need to update the code in response to errors, Schoeden said:

"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, that includes conflict resolution, always a consensus. "

Shredded silver image via Shutterstock


Leader in blockchain information, CoinDesk is an independent media company that strives to achieve the highest journalistic standards and adheres to a very strict set of publishing policies . Do you want to offer your expertise or ideas for our reporting? Contact us at news@coindesk.com .

Related Posts

leave a comment

Create Account



Log In Your Account