If they want to change history to help a privileged group of people, they should have a generalized mechanism and process for doing so. If I can prove I accidentally lost 1 ETH, let alone millions, I should be able to retrieve it via that same process.
I love Lord Vitalik as much as any ETH nerd, but the more he dictates to help his friends, the more it will hurt the ecosystem.
Stuff like this is why smart contracts won't work for the general public. Nobody wants to live in a world where a bug in a contract lets people steal your money and you can't get it back, even when you can prove who did it. We have contract law to deal with this stuff in the real world.
The problem is, if smart contracts are subject to human governance, what advantages do they have over any other kind of contract? How can they be trusted more than anything else that is subject to human governance? Automatic execution of contracts is nice, but if history can be rewritten later, you can't really build a deterministic system on top of them.
The person who wrote this EIP works for Parity.
If we're going to be fixing shit like this, can we also restore funds to the poor guy who got robbed of 41k ether?
From diving in, it looks like the contract backing a smart wallet implementation had a vulnerability/bug/design flaw allowing an arbitrary actor to kill it. It looks like these contracts are treated as a shared library so the contract being killed means any wallet depending on it is bricked.
The solution here seems to be a hard fork of Ethereum to allow revival of that problem contract. This seems unpalatable as, well, avoiding extensive human intervention is a key idea in cryptocoins.
Disclaimer: I got off the cryptocoin train awhile back so if I've mistaken anything, please point it out.
The debate is mostly happening here:
This change has no consensus like the DAO fix did, and the problem it fixes is both negligible and self inflicted.
Shit like this will kill eth. If anyone seriously working on this (any anyone with any vested interest in shit like this not happening) wants to have an informal chat about fixing this, I think I have some ideas on fixing this. It's quite legit, if I can say so. Check my profile for email.
It seems like most people in this thread don't understand that this is just a proposal made by the firm that lost funds and there is very little indication that it will be supported either by the Ethereum Foundation or by the community at large.
If this is accepted and implemented, could someone explain how Ethereum is a decentralised cryptocurrency?
Related PR https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/999
Is the affected associates of Vitalik, the benevolent dictator of Ethereum? Then this may get in.
I mention this because the DAO losses were address by a hard fork.
If enough money is at stake it would be advantageous for Vitalik and other core maintainers to allow for people to pay on getting their PRs accepted. This PR would restore I understand about >$100M in funds. This type of patch is surely worth money in order to accept.
At least if Vitalik and friends took money in order to do these types of arbitrary patch PRs to fix other people's problems, then it would at least be a fair playing field.
Is Vitalik and other core maintainers already getting paid by the people proposing these types of PRs?
I know it's not a very popular opinion but I think this is a good idea (disclaimer: i am not affected by this issue). The tech is there for the people, not the other way round.
I'm still aghast that "smart contracts" are procedural programs. No wonder a lot of bugs derive from them.
Contracts are functional, being procedural should be the exception.
They should be functional, scoped, limited (by the VM inclusive), testable.
I propose to roll Ethereum price back to 2015 for just a day, as a lot of people I know missed it and didn't manage to buy.
No. Just No. This is no different than the bank bailouts that inspired the creation of cryptocurrency. Is Parity too big to fail? If the answer is 'yes', then It's ime to convert all your ETH to ETC.
Can someone explain this in terms understandable to a software engineer with familiarity with cryptocurrency in general but no specific knowledge of ETH?
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to see that what the banking system has realised hundreds or thousands of years ago, that sometimes things go wrong and you need to undo it, is actually true. Cryptocurrencies deliberately design around what society has deliberately put in place, because that's what we want.
Problems like this are a critical flaw in cryptocurrencies. When something goes horribly wrong, who do you go to for help? You don't have a right to recourse with cryptocurrencies. With real money, you have legal rights that can be exercised by simply filing a complaint with the bank. If that doesn't go well, you go to the regulatory agencies or the courts.
Furthermore, if you do succeed in getting help from the community/central committee then you just defeated a goal of cryptocurrencies. Taken directly from the first paragraph of the homepage of the Ethereum website :
> Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third-party interference.
Assuming that in the future most businesses use crytocurrencies (which I think we can all agree on would be awesome and better than what exists), they will need to be able to access their money even if they make a mistake.
We're not taking money from you or I and giving it to a failing institution (a bailout). We are setting up a procedure so that when mistakes are inevitably made, someone can still access their funds.
After all we all agree it is all of these company's funds, right?
Can someone explain where the balance is?
A relevant earlier EIP, which I assume this conforms to:
> Provide a standardized format for Ethereum Recovery Proposals (ERPs), which relate to recovery of certain classes of lost funds. Individual ERPs will follow the same process as any EIP, but will be formatted and evaluated in a standard way to ensure consistency and transparency.
How is this different from the Federal Reserve and Treasury deciding to "save" Bear Stearns but not Lehman?
Is it time for a second ETC fork ?
this post breaks hacker news mobile page to scroll horizontal
The future is weird.
This is corruption.
is there a reason eth’s contracts aren’t coded in haskell or similar
Why this shit is here?
Gee, good thing that whole entire hash is in the headline. Wouldn’t want to misrepresent that huge meaningless string of numbers and letters.
Who fucking upvotes this retarded headline.