#EIP-999: Why A Vote To Release Parity Locked Funds Evoked So Much Controversy

Parity's recent call for a vote on their submitted EIP-999, which would allow for affected users to regain access to their assets stored in the multisig wallet, caused a stir within the Ethereum community, even prompting Vitalik Buterin himself to call for a boycott of Consensus 2018, stating "Sensationalist" coverage of EIP-999 as part of the reason.

The situation started with the July 2017 Parity hack, which resulted in the loss of 150,000 Ethereum.

The mechanics of the improvement proposalAs a result, parity submitted an Ethereum Improvement Proposal.

The debate about a hard fork emerged because it seemed two of the biggest Ethereum software companies, namely Geth, a multipurpose command line tool for Ethereum, and Parity Technologies, a popular client for interacting with the Ethereum blockchain, had conflicting thoughts on the implementation of EIP-999.However, this sentiment has since been quashed by both Geth and Parity, with Geth developer Péter Szilágyi clarifying his position directly on Twitter and Parity founders Jutta Steiner and Gavin Wood stating in a blog post for Parity Technologies they do not plan to provoke a split in the Ethereum blockchain.

The controversial voteThe actual vote itself was a source of much controversy, with the voting mechanism coming under a lot of scrutiny.

In this instance, because casting a vote meant simply signing a message from an Ethereum account, instead of transferring a certain amount of ETH, users whose funds are locked up in the Parity library, could also cast a vote.

Polkadot could therefore use its large holding locked up in the Parity library, being some 306,000 ETH, for a yes vote on a proposal that was effectively submitted by Gavin Wood, albeit through Parity.

"It's the crux of the matter, though. The Parity multisig library, as an autonomous agent, fulfilled its programming exactly to the letter and self-destructed when it was instructed to. Reversing that will require interference with that autonomous agent's state outside of the rules under which it was created.That is exactly what Ethereum, and blockchains in general, are supposed to prevent. It's a"you literally had one job" situation for a blockchain.

"Let's make things really simple here: Is the eco-system and thus the entire future and growth of the Ethereum blockchain at risk? With the DAO - it was Yes thus requiring a hardfork to protect the Ethereum protocol and eco-system. With Parity - it is No thus not requiring a hardfork because neither the Ethereum protocol nor the eco-system are at risk".

Finally, if the vote succeeded it would potentially open the floodgates to a myriad of requests from people who lost ETH in past due to no fault of their own to have their funds returned through a similar solution.