The errors of the Ethereum blockchain generate tensions

The errors of the Ethereum blockchain generate tensions

Ethereum user mistakes and developer dilemma

Ethereum has become a favorite currency over the past year, both due to the growing price and the large number of ICOs that use it. Unfortunately, the large number of users also means many human errors that have caused, in many instances, the loss of ETH. Whether it’s attacks, code errors or human errors, users frequently complain and tensions are on the rise.

A chat on Github, created last year after Parity’s start-up has lost 513,000 ETH, illustrates the existing tensions recently resurrected by a proposal launched by TapTrust to standardize recovery proposals for lost funds.

TapTrust was created by three developers (of which Dan Phifer lost 16,475 ETHs in the Parity incident) and proposes a system upgrading to provide the possibility of recovering funds once the request has been approved by an arbitration panel. The implementation of the proposed solution requires all users to upgrade the software and is the second proposal of this type launched by TapTrust (the first referring to the recovery of funds lost by Parity, but which was vehemently rejected).

The idea, however, has generated stormy debates among users, some of whom argue that they would contradict the basic principles of Ethereum.

Ethereum creator, Vitalik Buterin, developer Yoichi Hirai, and communications manager Hudson Jameson, three of the members who manage ethereum deposits, rejected the proposal from the start. It is Hirai who asserted that Ethereum’s philosophy is that each user is responsible for their own funds and that an arbitration system would focus decision-making in the hands of a limited number of influential people, that is, exactly what Ethereum is trying to avoid.

The controversy dates from 2016, when an attack on the DAO ICO resulted in the theft of 3.6 million ETH. The solution adopted at that time was an update that returned stolen funds, although this decision caused a fracture in the ethereum community – a group of members generated the Ethereum Classic bifurcation, currently worth 1.7 billion dollars.

Most users fear that a new upgrade will generate another bifurcation, while Pfifer believes that the large number of incidents makes it necessary to implement a fundraising system.

Although DAO and Parity were the largest incidents in Ethereum’s history, the loss of funds seems to be relatively common: a mistake in one wallet can cause permanent wiping of funds, and attacks on unsecured smart contracts are common (Creator Litecoin called ethereum “paradise of hackers”).

The final conclusion is that solutions to conflicts among ethereum users need to be identified, because the software needs to be able to adapt to market evolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: