Breaking News

Keep freezing? Ethereum parity wallet loopholes still exist, there is no simple solution

It's been three weeks since Ethereum, a 160-million-dollar block from Ethereum wallet Parity, has been frozen, but there is still no solution to release the money. However, this does not mean that we will not discuss returning these Ethereum to the rightful owners.

Over time, there has been a growing number of controversies on public chat channels, updating fixes across the web, on how best to solve problems, and in particular how to avoid rolling back the entire Ethereum blockchain history.

There has been significant activity on a public channel hosted on GitHub, a proposal created by the Ethereum development team to discuss the deadlock in smart contracts. (This type of loss of assets occurs at a certain frequency, for example, when a user sends funds to a nonexistent wallet).

However, the discussion of the Parity incident is somewhat different, partly because of the extent of the loss of capital and the political factors inherent in the decision-making.

Just as the notorious DAO hacking incident last year led to an event that led people to debate whether Ethereum is overly central and if blockchains are truly immutable (meaning that all transactions are not artificially tampered with) .

This is mainly because, in response to DAO, Ethereum stakeholders have rewritten and approved the rewriting of blockchain history. This move sparked controversy and criticism, and even created another alternative blockchain - Ethereum Classic, which is now valued at $ 1.7 billion.

Although Parity developers are starting to rethink how to solve this difficulty, the idea of ​​whether this is the best way to tackle mass hacking has changed.

Just as there is a special voice on the recovery channel:

"If the Ethereum Foundation needs a hard fork every three to twelve months to transfer money, then we're using Ethereum."
Unlike DAO events
However, while political tensions are reminiscent of the DAO incident, there are some key differences between the two attacks. The difference is that the DAO incident was theft of funds, while Parity wallets were frozen due to security breaches.

Although there is a conspiracy theory about the maliciousness of Parity developers - the code base was accidentally deleted during the theft of funds. In fact, the affected ETH is not integrated into a wallet, which changes the perception that technology is evil.

In particular, the Ethereum blockchain is not rolled back.

Nick Johnston, a developer at Ethereum, wrote in response to the controversy over the channel: "Why do you think the money lost must be recovered in time? I've been stolen bicycle and now it was recovered and not lost."

In contrast, the proposed Ethereum update program involves changes to the existing Ethereum Improvement Agreements (EIPs) to prevent a more frozen ETH from being frozen. In short, developers are trying to take a broader approach to solving the problem.

However, while developers have focused on improving Ethereum network security as much as possible, none of the solutions discussed so far seem to have reached a consensus.

Imperfect choice

For example, the existing Ethereum improvement protocol EIP156 could be modified to return some Parity wallets lost by adding a new rule in the software.

Created in October last year by Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, the EIP156 is titled "Ethereum Saving Frozen Accounts." However, despite the promising name, developers do not believe it exactly matches the current Parity issue.

EIP 156 allows funds to be restored, giving owners of lost ETH mathematically justification that they are legal owners. However, it only applies to funds that are not running code or empty smart contracts, and can not save Parity wallets that still have associated frozen code.

Although it is possible to extend the EIP 156 protocol to solve the current problem, such a fix is ​​not yet complete.

According to Martin Holst Swende, Ethereum security chief, Parity refunds can be hardcoded into the EIP 156, which will help one-time return of funds. However, the refund does not apply to ICO tokens that are hacked.

And because of a flaw in the code, the wallet, once it is reinstated, is not returned to the original owner - instead, they automatically go to the technology "creator".

One of the more "pretty" solutions hailed as a discussion on the recovery line is the tagging of lost assets, similar to the credit token that Bitfinex distributed after a $ 60 million hack last year.

Inspired by the EIP 156 itself, this idea creates a token that loses capital owners' ownership of themselves. This will allow traders to speculate on the release of funds, which, according to Holst Swende, will allow people affected by Parity hacking to win back the money before the underlying code fixes.

Likewise, Holst Swende speculates that perhaps this type of token could be used as a voting mechanism to find out if the community really needs a core wallet upgrade.

Parity's official proposal

Although it may be the United Kingdom Parity company to define the proposal on the loss of funds, but it rarely appears in the channel. Although this may not reflect the company behind the scenes.

In response to the questioning, one representative said that the discussion might be forthcoming.

It is unclear whether other conversations between members of the Ethereum community will affect Parity's proposal, but delegate Afri Schoedon wrote yesterday, demanding a summary of the discussion, stating:

Parity may discuss the proposal this week, but I'd like to know any other proposal. "
According to rumors, a Parity member is working on a fix that requires a change to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) to order the lost wallet "Do Not Destroy."

Although unverified, this proposal has become a contention point for Johnston, Johnston told CoinDesk it will "change an important invariants" in the EVM, which led to "contain unexpected errors in even the contract has been deployed."

However, Afri Schoedon pledged Parity intends to provide "more than one proposal" and postpone to let the community decide "which one is acceptable or expected."

He told CoinDesk: "We might add two or three of our own proposals."