5 ms·

Can someone ELI5 if this is an issue with Ethereum in concept/execution or with Pairity and how they handle Eth? Is this an issue that can be repeated on diffe

• tylerjd 9y ago
  With Parity, afaik they had a uninitialized contract owner, which could be and was initialized and subsequently caused the contract to suicide. This has a better writeup: https://medium.com/crypt-bytes-tech/parity-wallet-security-alert-vulnerability-in-the-parity-wallet-service-contract-1506486c4160 https://medium.com/crypt-bytes-tech/parity-wallet-security-a...
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• PeterisP 9y ago
  Parity made this particular bug; but the bug and impact raise questions about: 1) Whether the Ethereum/Solidity design and implementation is good enough, because it seems that bugs like this and not like this are far too common and far too easy to make, and a better design/implementation would make such incidents less common; 2) Whether the Ethereum concept/sales pitch of smart contracts that cannot be overridden is actually something that the community wants, and perhaps there does need to be some structured way/process on how flawed contracts can be altered; as the DAO incident is some evidence that we might want a way to alter contracts in certain conditions, but the previously used solution of ad-hoc hard fork isn't a good one. Perhaps we do want smart contracts that can't be overridden in any way whatsoever, but we have to acknowledge that this has a serious price - incidents such as this one.
  • nxsynonym 9y ago
    Thank you! This was super helpful.