Ethereum's more experienced developers are calling for a public debate over what, if any, measures should be taken at the software level to recover the funds lost during major hacks and incidents .

At a bi-weekly meeting Friday, developers took sides for a controversial Ethereum improvement proposal, EIP 867, which advocates a method of returning funds to potential victims . As CoinDesk points out, the problem has emerged as a lightning rod due to the fact that the proposal advocates the use of software upgrades at the system level as a possible solution.

It may not have been a surprise as the meeting introduced the passions on either side of what is becoming one of the platform's most important arguments.

Yet others have sought a more intermediate solution, such as having a more public debate.

Vlad Zamfir, developer of the Ethereum, told participants:

"These proposals, in particular the proposals that set important precedents, that affect the relationship between the community and the platform, must be the subject of a public debate of which I I am not sure, designed to manipulate. "

In response, the community director, Hudson Jameson, agreed, stating that he thought the debate should be played on social media. Similarly, independent developer Alexey Akhunov has proposed a live video debate between developers.

Some have, however, put forth a tone reserved for the idea.

The developer Piper Merriam warned that a live chat could become a "politician affair", stating that the debate should remain written. "Otherwise it's a popularity contest," he said.

As such, the comments allude to another element of the debate, one that addressed the question of what role developers should play in blocking proposals for public discussion.

EIP 867, for example, is headed by the lesser known developer Dan Phifer of Musiconomi, a start-up that lost a lot of ether in the parity fund freeze last year.

Yoichi Hirai, editor of the EIP, rejected the proposal because of his refusal to comply with what he described as an "ethereal philosophy", but he now adopts a more liberal approach , claiming that "the EIP repository is like Twitter."

"Everyone can say what he wants and I am merging everything," he said.

For the moment, no further action will likely be taken on the proposal before the etheric process to accept code changes, detailed in EIP-1, has been clarified.

However, Jameson said today that the current controversy had accelerated such efforts.

Piece of Silicon via Shutterstock

Leader in blockchain information, CoinDesk is an independent media company that strives to achieve the highest journalistic standards and adheres to a strict set of editorial policies. Do you have any breaking news or a tip to send to our journalists? Contact us at news@coindesk.com.

