Ethereum Users Attacked Github Rejecting Lost Fund Recovery Proposal

[steve1983]

Ethereum Users Attacked Github Rejecting Lost Fund Recovery Proposal
Ethereum code editor Yoichi Hirai resigned from his position following an Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) over a standardized format for lost fund recovery would potentially violate Japanese law.

Ethereum investors have broken their silence about a move to facilitate the return of funds which have been lost in the platform. This came after the resignation of Yoichi Hirai. Members attacked Github rejecting the controversial proposal.
The original EIP proposal #867 was introduced by Musiconomi developer Dan Phifer as an option for how to easily modify the Ethereum (ETH) Blockchain to redistribute address balances in the case of lost funds.

Fund recovery is a very sensitive subject. In fact, this controversy has already led to the development of a rival cryptocurrency called Ethereum classic. This heated response came after a week of silence. Some said the proposal was a shame for the Ethereum family. There were few people who supported the idea but majority was against it.

James Levy who is one of the developers leading the proposal closed the Github issue last night which lead to confusion and speculation that EIP 867 is no longer active. However, the extraction request is still open and at this point, it continues to receive comments.
User Aribo stated that the recovery is not the responsibility of the developers of the system, stating the functions of Ethereum philosophy in details.

"Ethereum is not a bank or a private company that has profits/losses and investments. If someone loses money in the economic system created within Ethereum is at its own peril, and it never should be the function and responsibility of the system, and thus its developers, to allow the recovery of these funds and, even less, build the rules/standards for this to happen.”

Implementing a standardized method for returning lost or stolen crypto has long been a contentious point of debate in the crypto community, for some view any such action as going against the values of Blockchain’s supposedly inherently immutable nature.