4 ms·

> As for Ethereum, no one in their right mind would base something so crucial on such risky and proven-damaging language/platform. Print all the press releases

> As for Ethereum, no one in their right mind would base something so crucial on such risky and proven-damaging language/platform. Print all the press releases you want to present yourself innovative etc., but it's a rotten foundation if you care about security and reliability. At least I hope we will see some evolution on that side instead of dirty-patching security issues. This is a bold statement to proclaim while providing no evidence. It's the second largest cryptocurrency in the world, for Christsakes!

kbody 10y ago
Just from the DAO hack, you can learn a lot of things of how Ethereum works as a project and a company: - Ethereum's design (turing completeness etc.) doesn't enable formal verification of code/contracts - Months before the hack, Ethereum had paid for security audits, in the report the way the DAO hack was done was described, yet Ethereum failed to do anything about. - It's up to the decision of Ethereum's corporation (a.k.a Ethereum Foundation) to decide if they don't like one transaction or contract to make a hardfork, they broke one of their selling points of code is law. On a sidenote, the 3rd largest cryptocurrency is a instant/premined scam[1] and the 5th largest is a super-centralized system that you can barely call cryptocurrency. So marketcap doesn't prove much. [1]: http://daia.group/2017/03/13/review-dash-2/ http://daia.group/2017/03/13/review-dash-2/
- reddytowns 10y ago
  Regardless if the ethereum language is turing complete or not, you can still formally verify individual contracts. You can't determine whether every contract will halt or not, but that is a separate issue. The DAO contract should have been formally verified, and this was an oversight of the creators and as well as the participants to not demand this. Also, the DAO is separate from Ethereum. It's a contract running on ethereum, not ethereum itself. You are being very hyperbolic with your criticism.

kbody 10y ago

Just from the DAO hack, you can learn a lot of things of how Ethereum works as a project and a company: - Ethereum's design (turing completeness etc.) doesn't enable formal verification of code/contracts - Months before the hack, Ethereum had paid for security audits, in the report the way the DAO hack was done was described, yet Ethereum failed to do anything about. - It's up to the decision of Ethereum's corporation (a.k.a Ethereum Foundation) to decide if they don't like one transaction or contract to make a hardfork, they broke one of their selling points of code is law. On a sidenote, the 3rd largest cryptocurrency is a instant/premined scam[1] and the 5th largest is a super-centralized system that you can barely call cryptocurrency. So marketcap doesn't prove much. [1]: http://daia.group/2017/03/13/review-dash-2/ http://daia.group/2017/03/13/review-dash-2/

reddytowns 10y ago
Regardless if the ethereum language is turing complete or not, you can still formally verify individual contracts. You can't determine whether every contract will halt or not, but that is a separate issue. The DAO contract should have been formally verified, and this was an oversight of the creators and as well as the participants to not demand this. Also, the DAO is separate from Ethereum. It's a contract running on ethereum, not ethereum itself. You are being very hyperbolic with your criticism.