3 ms·

This is a problem that everybody seems to skip over with cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are being sold as eliminating trust and allow us to rely on the col

This is a problem that everybody seems to skip over with cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are being sold as eliminating trust and allow us to rely on the cold certainty of mathematics. Only trust hasn't been eliminated from the system, it's just been shifted from a central bank to the authors of the software client you're using. To the majority of the miners in the network. The awful politics, lies, greed, corruption, are still here in all their glory.

Emilee999 9y ago
Love my job, since I've been bringing in $82h… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online… •••••••••>>http://ow.ly/iBXm30dNtIZ http://ow.ly/iBXm30dNtIZ
lsmarigo 9y ago
Much worse in fact, since the entities in power have no oversight, were not elected, and have no obligation to anything but increasing their own personal wealth.
- novalis78 9y ago
  Not quite true. You elect with your money. Immediate. Instantly. And you withdraw your support with the one thing that hurts most: your money and move to a competing system. That's extremely liberating and powerful. Also: anybody can fork and create an alternative model whenever they prefer to do so.
  - beefield 9y ago
    Only in this particular case you do not have any money left because you made (probably unknowingly) a contract to give it away. (Or it was stolen, depending on your point of view, but anyway, there is no money left to vote with)
Pigo 9y ago
>It’s important to understand that this exploit was not a vulnerability in Ethereum or in Parity itself. Rather, it was a vulnerability in the default smart contract code that the Parity client gives the user for deploying multi-signature wallets. Yeah, I don't see the difference here. So it was an aspect of Ethereum that had the vulnerability, how many more millions have to be stolen before the system is successfully QA'd? I'd never heard of Ethereum before, so now this is the only thing I've heard about it.
- holtalanm 9y ago
  I read that and said to myself "So....it WAS a vulnerability in Parity" The article stating that it wasn't a vulnerability with Parity AND THEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER stating it was a vulnerability with code distributed BY PARITY is throwing up all sorts of red flags with me. Like the Wizard of OZ with "There is nothing behind the curtain"

Emilee999 9y ago

Love my job, since I've been bringing in $82h… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online… •••••••••>>http://ow.ly/iBXm30dNtIZ http://ow.ly/iBXm30dNtIZ

lsmarigo 9y ago

Much worse in fact, since the entities in power have no oversight, were not elected, and have no obligation to anything but increasing their own personal wealth.

novalis78 9y ago
Not quite true. You elect with your money. Immediate. Instantly. And you withdraw your support with the one thing that hurts most: your money and move to a competing system. That's extremely liberating and powerful. Also: anybody can fork and create an alternative model whenever they prefer to do so.
- beefield 9y ago
  Only in this particular case you do not have any money left because you made (probably unknowingly) a contract to give it away. (Or it was stolen, depending on your point of view, but anyway, there is no money left to vote with)

Pigo 9y ago

>It’s important to understand that this exploit was not a vulnerability in Ethereum or in Parity itself. Rather, it was a vulnerability in the default smart contract code that the Parity client gives the user for deploying multi-signature wallets. Yeah, I don't see the difference here. So it was an aspect of Ethereum that had the vulnerability, how many more millions have to be stolen before the system is successfully QA'd? I'd never heard of Ethereum before, so now this is the only thing I've heard about it.

holtalanm 9y ago
I read that and said to myself "So....it WAS a vulnerability in Parity" The article stating that it wasn't a vulnerability with Parity AND THEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER stating it was a vulnerability with code distributed BY PARITY is throwing up all sorts of red flags with me. Like the Wizard of OZ with "There is nothing behind the curtain"