Should Ethereum Add the "Frozen Wallet" Feature for Certain Adresss?

[huu78]

A good solution, but some ERC20 based projects can already partially lock their own tokens so that when the airdrop or bounty distribution does not occur the price drops excessively.
But many investors are disappointed if their tokens are in lock like that, not according to what they invested. But it can also if the Frozen Wallet is used appropriately for the sake of tackling excessive crypto hacking.

[1714470553]

1714470553

[1714470553]

1714470553

[1714470553]

1714470553

[ajiz138]

On the one hand, it would be useful. But on the other hand, hardly anyone wants such a function to appear. After all, in cryptocurrency, it is appreciated that each user manages his wallet and his funds. And if someone the third will have to them modicum what the access, then this will cause negative reaction.

Indeed there will be many pros and cons that emerge. As the owner of the wallet we will feel our assets monitored by a third party, but on the other hand this will be very useful if there is hacking our wallet. As a user, you must take good care of your private key and do not allow it to be accessed by others. If someday a frozen wallet will be applied, there must be some rules that must be changed so as not to harm anyone.

[alexsandria]

Nah. In the past, I have seen many erc-20 token developers who can lock their tokens and this hasn't been accepted by investors. Developers with the ability to lock tokens were treated as scammers. That's how investors would also treat ethereum devs like Vitalik if they ever implement a "frozen wallet" feature.

I agree with this. Though it has a good purpose in terms of avoiding hackers but it is still hard to let the money be locked by developers. Though adding additional security features like another private keys besides to opening the wallet it would be seemed over loaded but still hackers could make it through. Besides as you stated it would break the nature of crypto currency and user won't feel safe monitored by other party.

[Herbert2020]

ethereum is already heavily centralized so there is no worries there and you can add any feature that you think requires centralization without any problem. but the real question in my opinion should be about whether this is going to fix anything or will it only postpone the inevitable. for example if the hacker has the ability to dump the token then adding the frozen wallet feature only delays the dump unless you want to burn the coins for good so that nobody can EVER spend them which is not the case with any token.

[GideonGono]

On the one hand, it would be useful. But on the other hand, hardly anyone wants such a function to appear. After all, in cryptocurrency, it is appreciated that each user manages his wallet and his funds. And if someone the third will have to them modicum what the access, then this will cause negative reaction.

Indeed there will be many pros and cons that emerge. As the owner of the wallet we will feel our assets monitored by a third party, but on the other hand this will be very useful if there is hacking our wallet. As a user, you must take good care of your private key and do not allow it to be accessed by others. If someday a frozen wallet will be applied, there must be some rules that must be changed so as not to harm anyone.

Of course before the developer goes on that action then they will be the one who think if it was be the good one to do for the sake of their customer or the user.

How about if their adding some security on the wallet not just easily open by private key because it just easy to copy and paste it when someone do lost it.

[desticy]

Recently, Vitalik Buterin conducted a survey on Twitter, I am interested in the community how much money should have been stolen by hackers so that the community agreed to roll back the network.
He was criticized, because this does not comply with the principles of cryptocurrency and blockchain. In my opinion, exchanges should better monitor their security in order to prevent hacker attacks.

[pgbit]

Like you said, this would turn it from "decentralized" to "Centralised" because the whole point of a decentralised Currency is to remove the powers from one person or a group of persons and put it in the hands of the people, if one person or a group of persons has the authority to freeze the assets in any wallet if their choice then it wouldn't be a fair system, would it? And if you put it in the hands of everyone, people would start locking the wallets of anyone they hate just for the fun of it, this is not fair too.

[kidbounty]

A good solution, but some ERC20 based projects can already partially lock their own tokens so that when the airdrop or bounty distribution does not occur the price drops excessively.
But many investors are disappointed if their tokens are in lock like that, not according to what they invested. But it can also if the Frozen Wallet is used appropriately for the sake of tackling excessive crypto hacking.

I think it will cause new problems. what if the developer uses a frozen wallet to lock one of investor wallet that has many tokens. wouldn't this be a big problem, it might reduce trust in the ethereum platform.

and we know that hacking problems usually attack large coins like bitcoin. so frozen wallets don't really matter for erc20 tokens. I see a lot of negative things from the positive side if this is applied on the ethereum platform.

[yazher]

As we know, there are currently many cases of crypto hacking, especially this often occurs in ERC20-based tokens. So to anticipate this, should Ethereum add the "Frozen Wallet" feature just for certain Adresss to their smart contract? I think this way can prevent the hackers to selling their loot. Although this method will change the crypto vision from "decentralization" to "centralization", but if this method is effective I think it's no matter.What do you think?

This is not a good feature for Etherium because there are a lot of victims who will fall for it too, especially those who only get some ETH from the hackers. If the hacker will send some ETH on your wallet on the purpose of diversifying his loots to mislead the authority? Imagine what would be your situation in that scenario and also let's say, you're holding a massive amount of ETH too. that's a lot of complicated explanation right? The only best way to prevent the hackers from getting the funds of the innocent investors is, to let them study security and measures on how to protect their crypto assets from hackers.

[coinfinger]

It depends on the level of damage that would have been done to the cryptocurrency in the wallet before you can even get the chance to activate the frozen option, and don’t also forget that these hackers are also professional hacker, they follow every details and every move of all the people that are working to secure the crypto space and its wallet, and as these people advances in security, so the hackers also advance in hacking system also.

If Ethereum add that option to their wallet, hijacker may have taken control of all the login detail and move the money out before report of such hacked wallet could even get to them, except it is their own personal wallet that has been hacked which will send a distress signal to them immediately.

[Shepard777]

As we know, there are currently many cases of crypto hacking, especially this often occurs in ERC20-based tokens. So to anticipate this, should Ethereum add the "Frozen Wallet" feature just for certain Adresss to their smart contract? I think this way can prevent the hackers to selling their loot. Although this method will change the crypto vision from "decentralization" to "centralization", but if this method is effective I think it's no matter.

What do you think?

I think this is stupid because I am a supporter of a decentralized cryptocurrency, because for this it was created so that no one could control anything, and all these innovations in which centralization is present spoils the whole industry, so ladies and gentlemen, let's try to use decentralized more often products of the cryptocurrency industry so that it continues to develop further.

[jossiel]

I would like labeling those wallets of hackers/scammers, "scam wallet address".

This is way better than the suggestion of OP, imo. There should be a voting process on this and once it has reached its threshold, many newbies will avoid being scammed again if they are checking out the ETH addresses before sending.

[caffu chino]

frozen wallet is a setback for the ethereum platform. this will only reduce the level of trust in platforms and projects in the ethereum network. investors will be afraid to hold tokens, because devs could without any reason freeze his wallet. maybe this is good for hackers, but this will only cause new problems

[TheClownSong]

As we know, there are currently many cases of crypto hacking, especially this often occurs in ERC20-based tokens. So to anticipate this, should Ethereum add the "Frozen Wallet" feature just for certain Adresss to their smart contract? I think this way can prevent the hackers to selling their loot. Although this method will change the crypto vision from "decentralization" to "centralization", but if this method is effective I think it's no matter.

What do you think?

I agree if there is this feature. With so many hacking going on, at least the hacker doesn't enjoy the theft token. If this happens. maybe hackers will rethink to steal tokens in other people's wallets because at the end they can't sell them or transfer them until there is a legal decision