3 ms·
>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 con
by 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 agoI 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"