The issue of restoration of Parity of funds and management problems in Ethereum

One of the most fierce debate in the community Ethereum once again gaining strength – even more than before. The question of whether the second largest blockchain to spend another hardwork to reclaim $239 million in the ETH lost due to the error in one of the major wallets, discusses the last of this year and has once again become relevant in the new round of struggle among the interested parties this week.

The problem erupted with new force in the week before the meeting in Berlin to discuss the issues of decision-making in a decentralized network, associated with the offer on modification of the Protocol Ethereum EIP-999. In the heart of the problem is not only the question of how the developers of Ethereum will handle this controversial change code, but also the trouble that may arise in the future as growth and expansion of the platform.

A new round of discussion received at a scheduled meeting of the Council of Ethereum Magicians – offline event for team first conducted in the beginning of 2018 to discuss how Ethereum should handle technical updates and differences associated with changes in the code.

After a discussion on Saturday were Choedon of Afri (Afri Schoedon), communications Manager at Parity Technologies — a startup whose code snafu necessitated the freezing of funds. He proposed to change the status of EIP 999 — proposals aimed at reviving 584 purses, which remains a large part of the blocked funds.

Choedon asked to promote EIP 999 within the process of consideration of amendments to the code of Ethereum. He noted that since there are no technical objections against the proposal, he should be given the status «accepted». However, this step provoked a stinging debate on Twitter, Github and Reddit. The response was quick, and the opponents of the proposal offered to translate it into a rejected status.

«I wish people stopped using the repository EIP for political posturing,» wrote
Twitter developer Nick Johnson (Nick Johnson).

The move provoked a strong reaction from those who do not want to recover funds, as fears that similar requests will come in on a regular basis. They believe that if users and developers of Ethereum can act as managers of the market, they will not differ from today’s Central bodies monetary-credit regulation.

«EIP is at Parity was just «accepted» Ethereum Foundation, despite the negative reaction of the community. Now the decision was exposed and the request code was closed,» said one observer: «Ethereum fully centralized».

Management problems

Since then, Choedon asked to close the request code, stating that his actions stem from a misunderstanding of the position of other members of the community on the implementation of the EIP approval process (the details of which are still under discussion). Complicated situation and the fact that Choedon who initiated the translation of the sentence in the status «accepted», and is the author of the EIP 999.

However, in a broader sense, this problem seems to worsen the severity of other problems that many developers of Ethereum has long recognized — despite attempts at coordination, digital communication has the potential to severely alienate users.

In addition, there are concerns that the Internet competing projects can consciously add fuel to the fire of discussion, filling social networks with fake accounts to create the illusion of debate and controversy.

In an attempt to reduce the impact of such discussions on the developers who are entrusted to make decisions about changing code, this problem has forced the community to consider how to clarify the process EIP is to formalize a way of organizing and making code changes in the repository Ethereum. One user summarized:

«EIP 999 is an excellent example of the problems in management, and they do not just disappear. They bring every discussion to the boiling point».

Ritual magic

In response to the uncertainty resulting from the query Sedona, attempts were made to clarify the process for adoption of the EIP.

The Zsolt Micah (Micah Zoltu), a developer of a platform for decentralized market predictions Augur, suggested that the process should «focus on technical aspects, not on the feelings of the community.» In his opinion, this will help to save the core developers from falling into the trap of political debate.

This proposal has sparked debate on social networks. One user on Reddit warned
that «changes to the EIP process, which eliminates the need to estimate the opinion of the community».

Speaking at the forum, Zsolt explained that he wants to avoid a situation where «ritual magic or collective knowledge» based on the conclusion of an agreement between developers.

This discussion influenced the developers meeting in Berlin, where the main attention was paid to how to overcome the current political deadlock and how developers should evaluate proposals based solely on the technical merits.

According to the participants, if the process of consideration and adoption of the EIP will be announced purely technical, it can free the core developers from the role of social judges. However, when it comes to such proposals as EIP 999, the boundaries become more blurred. As one of the participants:

«This is a very clear technical proposal with profound social consequences.»

Despite the fact that the group of developers involved in the decision and other issues, the issue of recovery of assets has long been associated with them, as part of the group was established to resolve management problems, which opened the debate on the restoration of funds.

In the days preceding the meeting, Ryan Zurrer (Ryan Zurrer), venture partner Polychain Capital, published a report
in the blog, in which he called on developers to create «road map» for recovery of funds, stating that the ability of Ethereum to remain adaptive at stake.

This entry has led to bickering in social networks, and researcher Dean Eigenmann (Dean Eigenmann) even reached that warned that the team fell victim to meet the needs of those who lost money.

«You thought that the issue with EIP 999 closed,» wrote Eigenmann on Twitter: «It leads nowhere».

Because much is at stake, and the injured parties were present at the meeting, the issue of recovery of funds was the leitmotif of the discussion. In this regard, Peter Maric (Peter Mauric), head of the Department of public relations of Parity Technologies, likened this situation to «an elephant weighs 8,000 pounds, all of which are trying to miss.»

EIP 867

Discussed the «road map» for recovery of funds and recognition of the fact that a group of Magicians is just an informal one.

«The final decision has been made,» said Boris Mann (Boris Mann), co-organizer of the event. «We all know that personal meetings help to solve problems, but final decisions on any matters shall be within the framework of a more open and public discussion than this debate».

Thus, Mann believes that, meeting Magicians should be used as a forum to discuss the development of the EIP, which are then passed on to the upstream development team for consideration.

To help this process, members of the Magicians promised to coordinate their actions in small working groups or «rings.» These rings and the EIP, which they produce, will be supported by the website for voting under the direction of Greene’s Griff (Griff Green), which will count the opinions of community members Ethereum, in an attempt to add legitimacy to the changes of the Protocol.

Instead of simply measuring the amount of air delivered to a particular proposal — as is the case with the current voting instrument, Carbon Vote — a new system that would attempt to assess the opinions of miners, developers, and other stakeholders.

«This is an important issue. I think this is the most basic level of decision-making in Ethereum,» said green.

To simplify the review process for major developers group, which is mandated to support Ethereum code — proposals for restoration of the funds required the scheme described in the proposal EIP 867.

This scheme, caused a storm in the community, would anyone who lost money in Ethereum (and not only in the case of Parity) to apply to restore them.

The risks of inaction

However, we can say that the progress made in the framework of a personal meeting, you will not be able to affect future issues associated with controversial proposals to change the code.

Speaking at the forum, Mann briefly summarized the situation, saying that after the improvement of the EIP 867 it can be represented as EIP along with the «request for vote».

«The vote is completed, its results are communicated to the developers and they decide whether to implement hardwork,» continued Mann.

Speaking at the meeting, Magicians, and other members that support the restoration of funds made to such proposals are consistent with the process proposed by Vitalik Baleriny in a recent interview. In it the founder of a network of hinted that developers can initiate a disposable fork to recover funds.

«However, I don’t think it’s right to make that decision or even to influence it,» said Buterin in June.

According to the participants, no matter in what direction the community, the decision should lead to a strict social contract that will determine the ratio of Ethereum to restore funds in the future to this debate has not surfaced in the community with enviable regularity.

However, the issue of control is still far from solution and remains a problem that is frustrating users on both sides of the debate.

«I regularly receive emails and phone calls on this subject,» said Maurik. «In reality, it is a good projects that were aimed at the development of distributed technologies. This means their creators, and it is difficult to talk to these people and tell them: «Well, we understand your problem, but we need to first understand the management».

As a result of the stagnation of some of the developers of Ethereum even called Ethereum Foundation to more confidently take the lead when it comes to debate. The Zsolt concluded:

«Choosing not to implement the EIP-999 is the solution. To ignore this offer is also a solution. In General I am opposed to Ethereum Foundation or the developers code hiding your head in the sand when it comes to management. I think that this contributes to stagnation and ultimately leads to complete halt of the decision-making process».

Problem management is one of the most pressing in the community of the blockchain, along with zoom and transaction fees. With it in varying degrees, affected all of the major chains. The last of these situations that have been widely discussed in the industry, was the problem
management recently launched network the EOS, which also was associated with the freezing of funds multiple wallets.

Добавить комментарий