Crypto Angels Space💰🚀

(https://paritytech.io/our-commitment-to-ethereum-and-a-decentralised-future/)that it is against forking Ethereum to recover user funds. “Let us make [it] clear: we have no intention to split the Ethereum chain,” the post reads (emphasis theirs). “We plan to continue to work with the community to find a path forward. We have all dedicated a great deal of time and effort to developing the Ethereum ecosystem, and have no intention of harming what we have helped build.”Two prominent Ethereum developers, Alex Van de Sande and Péter Szilágyi, have expressed a similar concern over this outcome. They’ve both voiced the opinion that the already contentious EIP-999 could evolve into a turf war over Ethereum’s code that would devolve into a chain split. Van de Sande has written about the topic extensively on his Medium blog (https://medium.com/@avsa/avoid-evil-twins-every-ethereum-app-pays-the-price-of-a-chain-split-e04c2a560ba8) and Szilágyi, in unpublished interview questions that he posted (https://twitter.com/peter_szilagyi/status/989133355571728385) to Twitter, espouses the idea that “[the community] is trying to reach consensus here, not destroy [its] work.“It's not possible to unlock the coins without a hard fork,” Alex Van de Sande told Bitcoin Magazine in an interview. “If they moved with EIP-999 (which they now have publicly vowed not to do) then it would inevitably lead to a fork as we know there would be enough users on both sides to maintain both coins.”Indeed, the conflict represents crossroads that could fracture the community, even if it isn’t as dire as some outlets may present it. Van de Sande believes that Parity’s official announcement shows that “they saw the concern the community had and have stepped back” from the proposal.Still, Van de Sande has explored alternative solutions to the Parity dilemma in the event that the community can’t reach a consensus on a way forward. The two solutions, both of which he posits in a post (https://medium.com/@avsa/recovering-lost-ether-past-and-future-eeb38b17aeb5) on his Medium blog, could be accomplished without a code change. The first involves creating a “recovery token” whose supply would reflect a 1:1 ratio of the frozen funds. “The idea,” he expounds in our interview, “is that the tokens would have multiple sources of revenue, donation being one of them,” and users can redeem these recovery tokens for real ether by burning them through the token’s smart contract.In the same vein, the second solution involves a decentralized insurance fund. Basically, the community could create smart contract insurance policies to refund those who lost ether to Parity and to cover future losses, as well. Featuring its own insurance tokens, this system would pay out 90 percent of losses and would rely on community members to act as issuers/insurance brokers for others.While novel in design, neither of these solutions is without its faults, and Van de Sande admitted in our interview that “[it] would require a lot of work to build such [systems].” The first bets that the community will display a degree of extreme altruism, as $320 million is no small loss to cover via donations. Without proper funding, the recovery tokens would have nothing to buttress their value, as they function solely as a voucher for lost funds. The second proposal also raises questions as to the incentives insurance issuers will have to front funds and how these policies would properly manage risks and liabilities.Phifer told us that, while he appreciates “Alex's continued effort to find another solution to the stuck funds that would not require a hard fork,” he does not see these solutions (in their current form) as “viable,” an opinion he has stated publicly elsewhere (https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-999-restore-contract-code-at-0x863df6bfa4/130/106). He suggests that alternative solutions like those Van de Sande proposes are creative and well-intended, but in trying to make everyone happy, they’re likely to

815 views17:28