No - it is to discuss the subset of EIPs which are related to various types of trapped ether. Mainly covered in EIP156, plus the pending EIP from Marek, and maybe more.
That discussion could happen in https://gitter.im/ethereum/EIPs, but is likely to be contentious and of very broad interest. Nick suggested a new channel specifically for this subset of EIPs to avoid ruining the signal-to-noise ratio in the existing channels.
OK - done with invites.
Does that make sense, @LefterisJP? Or do you think that all discussion around EIPs should just be directly in https://gitter.im/ethereum/EIPs?
Are you in favor of mailing lists over Gitter for this kind of strategic discussion? Greg's point is that archiving and discoverability of these kind of WHY questions is crucially important. He can search through years of dialog on all kinds of tricky edge-cases within the C++ standard, because everything was done via mailing lists. But he has no clue how decisions were reached on various points within Ethereum because the communication is so disorganized and hard to search through.
@rfikki My expectation is that we will either proceed with some set of EIPs which allow the recovery of as broad a set of common trapped funds scenarios as possible without compromising security - or that we proceed with none of them. And that would be a HF scenario for the community to decide on.
@mwilcoxnz has been harping on this point for quite a while, which is that protocol changes should treat all parties equivalently. An attack on one is an attack on all. So, we should look to favor generic solutions over specific solutions.
Adding generically useful recovery features is probably uncontroversial. Adding "If address = paritylibrary then recover" ... not so much. That kind of targeted fix is safer, but is a tyranny of the majority / picking a winner scenario.
And is exactly what happened with the DAO.
CC @AFDudley @FaceDeer @realcodywburns
Mark reminded me of this hypothetical discussion from a few months ago, which is not so hypothetical anymore. It isn't quite the same scenario, but it is close:
So, I'll discuss technical things, but with a few caveats:
The only public proposal as of yet, afaik, is EIP 156, to which I have made a suggested amendment.
Here's the short about EIP156 (and I'm talking about v2):
In it's current form, can be implemented at any time. It creates contracts which allow certain types of lost ether to be represented by a token,
futureToken. The claimants can make their claim by submitting proofs which can be verified on-chain. The current proposal covers:
Contracts that are accidentally created with no code (but prefunded with value),
Note that in all cases, the "rightful owner" of the assets is obvious and mathematically provable, and no user is being deprived of any assets, and this proposal provides no explicit favor to any single account, user or application.
Regarding my proposed amendment
balanceon the wallet.
xis incapable of transmitting ether (e.g.: no
DELEGATECALLto accounts without code), I don't feel comfortable attributing such ether to the
creatorin the general case. For example, the QuadrigaCX incident with the funds locked in "ReplaySafeSplit" would be given to the
creatorof the splitter library. I'm afraid that doing such a solution would make the
creatora target for multi-million dollar lawsuit - and what if that person doesn't even have the key anymore(?).
As I said, these contracts could be implememented at any point. A future hardfork could endow the contract with
ether corresponding to the tokens, which could then be redeemed.
The idea to tokenize lost assets is IMO rather elegant. There is also another interesting aspect, the idea to make these tokens tradeable. In that case, it would be open to speculate on whether a future HF is likely, and perhaps risk-averse holders could recover (some) of their losses long before a HF ever takes place. Maybe the token value could even be used as some voting-mechanism about HF. I don't know, haven't investigated the game-theory behind that, but it's an interesting thought.
The idea to tokenize lost assets is IMO rather elegant. There is also another interesting aspect, the idea to make these tokens tradeable
I am not sure I understand how such a token would have value. Without an HF to restore the lost funds what would provide value to such a token?