Parity Technologies proposes to release the locked ether with a hard fork

nRunaway Comment: The Ethereum network itself has hidden problems from the outset and is therefore exposed in The DAO and other related projects. So on how to solve these problems, to maintain follow-up development momentum, aroused community controversy. Including hard forks and the scope of measures. Parity suggested amending the agreement to allow the resumption of the automatic destruction contract.n
nTranslation: Annie_Xun
Parity Technologies multiple-sign wallet loopholes, frozen hundreds of millions of dollars in the ether, the blog referred to the ongoing problems of Ethereum and recommended action to restore these funds.n
From the beginning, Ethereum users faced a fault-tolerant command line interface that sent thousands of Ether to 0x0. An incorrect transaction with a billing address is interpreted as being sent to address 0x0 (destroyed or unusable with ether).n
A few months later, a bug was discovered by the JavaScript tool library written by the Ethereum Foundation, but countless people used it to generate wallets. This unfortunate discard of 1/128 accounts generated by some teams. Thousands of ether coins are frozen.n
The DAO attack and the subsequent bifurcation pose a problem for the trade, making the trade replay in the classic Ethereum and Ethereum networks. These issues are not fully understood, so there is no expectation that the Ethereum Classic will survive or even prosper, only to bring about a few problems. For example, Ethereum network does not execute the contract stored in ether.n
Ether to freezen
In the recent Parity Multiple Signed Wallet accident, the code contract governing the behavior of the wallet was deleted. Anyone who has ether in the Parity multi-signature purse can not withdraw funds.n
You can not recover all funds without modifying the blockchain status, consensus rules, or escalation opcodes. One might guess that this is not the intention of developers and users who take contracts or send deals.n
There are other problems, typos in the address are prone to errors and the ethernet is sent to the wrong address. Unfortunately, this error is recoverable, valid, and available, just as it is for storing ether addresses.n
Involved numerous factorsn
No one will think that what will happen if the funds are frozen is unlocked is only a rescue operation and can only be resolved by means of a bifurcation. In some cases the protocol failed. Customer usability issues, and code issues with the code of the funds and the privately maintained codebase, the way the competing networks look unpredictable, and simple user mistakes increase the severity of the situation.n
The blogger said that Ethereum is still very stable and continues to evolve.n
However, these problems have resulted in millions of dollars in losses, many of which can not be recovered because they can not prove their status or because they do not understand the sender’s intentions.n
The solution is possiblen
A lot can still be restored.n
Hard forks are controversial. It signals that the network measures are not what we expected. The question is whether any changes in the expected behavior of these networks will have a negative effect when the user selects the chain or the chain according to the adjusted expectations. This is somewhat similar to the controversial issue of changing rates and its controversy over the adjustment of miners’ behavior and incentives.n
The diversity of sources of such problems should be expected, and various solutions proposed include solutions to the extreme cases of strict rules, not well-defined exigencies, in particular cases.n
Vitalik proposed a topic in EIP 156 that allows the owner of a private key affected by a particular problem to submit an ether. Examples of this proposal include contracts without code, loss of vulnerability in the JavaScript library, and loss of replay attacks.n
This marks part of the adoption of a rigorous solution. There are clear owners in these cases, who can identify their identities with very low cost calculations on the chain. Therefore, this agreement will not clearly favor a specific account, application or user. This method does not include locking funds in the Parity Multi-Sign Wallet because the wallets have their own code and it will not allow the recovery of tokens, including the ether.n
Another solution is to recover specific Ether and Tokens and cover as many extreme cases as possible, but the definition is not strict. Solutions need to “hold pen” to divide the scope of people. Instead of modifying the semantic behavior of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), this is the most straightforward scenario, but resolving all previous cases.n
Modify the agreementn
The third option is that Parity recommends modifying the agreement to allow resumption of the auto-destroyed contract and the deployment of the contract for all users. This will reactivate Parity multi-signature wallets and other contract addresses that hold funds, but do not have the address where the code is deployed. This program can also prevent similar accidents in the future.n
Another part of the strict rules is that the scheme represents a modification of the EVM behavior in order to modify the functionality of the platform as it no longer uses the key elements of a contractually ordered transaction. Parity prefers this solution because it adds new functionality to the user through discussion of the details.n
Proper management of protocol upgrades and etheric forking. Technology upgrades have reached a consensus, not enhanced hard-fork fails. The next topic will be to test how disputes become consensus.n
Parity hopes the community will support the restoration of funding to help as many users as possible.n

Leave a Reply

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