The new proposal of Parity on return frozen ETH

Team Parity is posted to discuss the next proposal (EIP-999) to rescue 513 000 ETH, caught frozen in multipagina purse company in November 2017. Inept user of Github, accidentally stumbled on a vulnerability in the code of the wallet, left by developers who took advantage of her and declared himself owner of the purse, and then destroyed the library of functions of the smart contract then all the air in the purse became unavailable.

The first attempt to recover the funds

For the first time to rescue the frozen funds Parity tabled draft amendments to the Protocol of the Virtual Machine Ethereum, including opcodes to restore a deleted contract. The team hoped to enlist the support of users faced with a similar problem earlier – smart contracts «killed» for various reasons, it has appeared unexpectedly much. However, the project met with resistance as the regulars Reddit, fearing for their investment, the developers of the Ethereum Fund indicating the risks of changes in the code to the EVM.

The motives of the developers (of course, except for the Parity) is clear – a key priority this year is to work on scaling Ethereum, not a rescue operation. As for the network users, their arguments «for» and «against» may be summarized to the following points:

  • Vs – team Parity showed criminal negligence, abandoning audit of the upgraded contract after problems in the first version, so it should bear the consequences. Given the incident, programmers will be more responsible attitude to work. In addition, if in some cases it frozen, burned or stolen coins are returned, but not others, it will create space for manipulation. Of course, not without mentioning immutability of the blockchain, the coins must be determined exclusively by the current rules of the network.

  • Over – the-blockchain immutability is not absolute, and there are examples from the past: in the early days of bitcoin due to an error of the Protocol was released almost a trillion coins, and also incident to TheDAO. If you stick to the concrete principles, the ecosystem can be slow because the experiments are punishable, and large companies will think more than twice before investing in «fire» environment. Thus, choosing a resistance, you have to sacrifice innovation.

Without support, the command Parity has made a new offer, whose implementation is simpler.


The new proposal contains only one item: the recovery code is the only contract (0x863DF6BFa4469f3ead0bE8f9F2AAE51c91a907b4с) using a small patch. As usual, the commenters on Reddit exploded with negativity, but this time the proposal met with a more sympathetic attitude of the developers, mainly due to its simplicity. In an interview with Coindesk
Fund designer Nick Johnson (Nick Johnson) said:

«I think the restoration of the libraries of the contract is simpler from a technical point of view, besides it would look more sincere than the original proposal to modify the EVM for […] as for my opinion, then I am for assistance in the refund if the price of such a step, much less «saved» amount, the bona fide owner, and this is the only way. It seems to me that the case multipacting purse Parity satisfies all three criteria».

Interestingly, unlike Reddit users vote on the EIP-999
(will last until April 24) among the owners of ETH as at the time of writing shows a significant preponderance of votes in favor of the rescue funds: 60.8% (21715.2 ETH) and in 37.9% (13315.2 ETH) against. Every vote is weighed by the balance of voting wallet. However, as repeatedly pointed out Vlad Zamfir and Vitalik Buterin, voting with the wallet balance can not serve as the only criterion of choice. The point of passivity (apathy) voters. In the period of holding such vote on the return of the funds stolen in TheDAO, voted a total of not more than 15% of the balance. Therefore, the vote is important but not the determining factor in the decision.

Добавить комментарий