4 ms·

I heard that story behind this is that one of close friends of ETH developers lost a few $M in smart-contracts, so they want to be able to update its source cod

by akerro 9y ago

I heard that story behind this is that one of close friends of ETH developers lost a few $M in smart-contracts, so they want to be able to update its source code to access the ETH, is that true? How would that work?

fbonetti 9y ago
You can't modify smart contract code once it's been deployed, period. Ether that's locked up in bugged out contracts is permanently lost. This post describes a strategy for writing contracts that proxies the actual implementation of the contract to another contract. If the contract needs to be modified, a new contract is deployed and the original contract is set to point to the new contract. Edit: I misread your comment. There has been a discussion over of a possible hard fork in order to recover lost funds, but that's not what the author is referring to in this post.
ancorevard 9y ago
Yes, that is true: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/999 https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/999
- tuesdayrain 9y ago
  It's true, but it's not related to OP's article.
45h34jh53k4j 9y ago
$91 million of Polkadot ICO funds, Gavins ICO. Gavin a cofounder of Ethereum, and the creator of Solidity. So its more like the cofounder of Ethereum lost $91 million dollars in his own wallet, using his own smart contracts, using the language he wrote. I am against the proposal to undo the deleted multisig wallet contract. Everyone makes mistakes, some are worse than others. You can never learn if every mistake can be undone.
davesque 9y ago
The article is only partly related to that incident. People have been trying to figure out reasonable mechanisms for doing smart contract updates since before the Parity Multisig matter. What is discussed in the article is being used today and doesn't require implementation of an EIP. The desire to sort out how to do updates is motivated by much more than just that particular incident.

by akerro 9y ago

fbonetti 9y ago

You can't modify smart contract code once it's been deployed, period. Ether that's locked up in bugged out contracts is permanently lost. This post describes a strategy for writing contracts that proxies the actual implementation of the contract to another contract. If the contract needs to be modified, a new contract is deployed and the original contract is set to point to the new contract. Edit: I misread your comment. There has been a discussion over of a possible hard fork in order to recover lost funds, but that's not what the author is referring to in this post.

ancorevard 9y ago

Yes, that is true: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/999 https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/999

tuesdayrain 9y ago
It's true, but it's not related to OP's article.

45h34jh53k4j 9y ago

$91 million of Polkadot ICO funds, Gavins ICO. Gavin a cofounder of Ethereum, and the creator of Solidity. So its more like the cofounder of Ethereum lost $91 million dollars in his own wallet, using his own smart contracts, using the language he wrote. I am against the proposal to undo the deleted multisig wallet contract. Everyone makes mistakes, some are worse than others. You can never learn if every mistake can be undone.

davesque 9y ago

The article is only partly related to that incident. People have been trying to figure out reasonable mechanisms for doing smart contract updates since before the Parity Multisig matter. What is discussed in the article is being used today and doesn't require implementation of an EIP. The desire to sort out how to do updates is motivated by much more than just that particular incident.