The controversial proposal for the recovery of Ethereum funds continues to generate debate

The Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) that led to the resignation of an EIP editor due to his personal legal concerns has been closed, but an identical proposal has been reopened at Github on a relatively negative fanfare.

The original EIP # 867 proposal was introduced by Musiconomi developer Dan Phifer as an option to more easily modify Ethereum Blockchain (ETH) to redistribute the address balances in the circumstances of lost funds.

EIP editor Yoichi Hirai had criticized the draft for what he saw as a violation of a Japanese law on the creation of electromagnetic records, in addition to being "at odds with Ethereum's philosophy".

When the original proposal was closed, the community of Ethereum in Reddit responded positively in a thread that congratulated the community, a user calling it a "great victory for the community and the Ethereum network".

The comments in Github on the open version of proposal # 867 showed the polarity of the opinions of users on the standardization of the recovery of lost funds.

The user oxidizer called the proposal "Trojan horse for Ethereum," writing that "adding a recovery mechanism, regardless of the amount of refinement and" guarantees "applied, weakens the protocol."

The Aribo user went into more detail about the functions of the Ethereum philosophy, stating that the recovery of funds is not the responsibility of the developers of the system:

Boosting the recovery of funds as a necessary function of the system is, in my opinion, not understanding the function of the system well, 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 of Ethereum is at your own risk, and it should never be the function and responsibility of the system, and therefore of its developers, to allow the recovery of these funds and, even less, to build the rules / norms for this to happen. "

The implementation of a standardized method to return the lost or stolen crypto has long been a controversial point of debate in the crypto community, for some any of those actions goes against the values ​​of Blockchain's supposedly immutable nature.

The Ethereum community has already been divided once upon such a dispute, when a hard bifurcation was implemented as a consequence of the attack on DAO, leading to the division between Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC) - with ETC maintaining the Blockchain with the money stolen still with the attackers.