3 ms·
> Using a memory-safe language like Java makes it exponentially harder for developers to accidentally write remote-code execution vulnerabilities, and makes it
by syllogism 9y ago
> Using a memory-safe language like Java makes it exponentially harder for developers to accidentally write remote-code execution vulnerabilities, and makes it harder for malicious developers to hide remote-code execution vulnerabilities.
Weeell...In currencies like Bitcoin it's crucial that everyone have the most efficient implementation. Otherwise nobody will bother mining, if they can't do it efficiently.
I guess IOTA doesn't depend on the proof of work in the same way. But then again, IOTA seems hopelessly broken?
As I was reading the article and the "promises" of IOTA, I was thinking, "Okay so they must not be using Satoshi's solution to the consensus problem". It's not surprising to hear they don't have a solution. Sure this means the software might not have to be efficient. But that's cold comfort if it doesn't, you know, work.
- AgentME 9y ago>Weeell...In currencies like Bitcoin it's crucial that everyone have the most efficient implementation. Otherwise nobody will bother mining, if they can't do it efficiently. Parts that have very critical performance, especially proof-of-work code, can be in native code. (And if it's modularized well-enough, that code could be sandboxed to contain the damage of any vulnerability, so any remote-code-execution exploit can only corrupt the mining process with nonsense without being able to get to private key data.) Or a safe-and-performant language like Rust could be used.