108 ms·
A lot of these contracts, and especially those owned by first-tier cryptocurrency companies, are reviewed by 3rd party auditors. Of course that doesn't complete
by crypt1d 5y ago
A lot of these contracts, and especially those owned by first-tier cryptocurrency companies, are reviewed by 3rd party auditors. Of course that doesn't completely remove the risk, but certainly at least ensures that no obvious bugs are missed.
- uncomputation 5y agoIt’s very hard to take this claim seriously in this thread, which details a huge (and somewhat obvious) security vulnerability in a currency worth at least $600m (an amount anyone would assume is “first-tier”).
- crypt1d 5y agoYeah I can understand that. Once you dive into crypto however, you quickly realize that $600m is just not that much money (especially not if we are talking about digital assets valued at current ticker price). And that lots of money isn't necessarily the right measure of quality of the project.
- fny 5y agoLol, even 1% of $600M is $6M. That's a lot of money. You'd have to have garbage liquidity to only get back 1%.
- christkv 5y agoIt’s valued at 600 million that does not mean it can be liquidated for 600 million.
- smaryjerry 5y agoThat is literally what that means. Market caps are what they are because everyone who thinks it is worth less has sold and everyone who thinks it’s worth that or more will buy. There’s some outliers but in general these coins are trading their entire market cap over the course of maybe a month or less. Liquid generally means short term, if you can sell it for cash in under a year then it is liquid. Sure if you tried to sell all coin today in the same minute you won’t find a buyer but over a month this happens all the time.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hjorthjort 5y agoI had never heard of this bridge before the attack. The fact that a project manages to attract half a billion in capital unfortunately doesn't say all that much, since so much capital is flowing in so fast to every project with a pulse. And the bug wasn't really obvious, although the lack of input sanitation is something an auditor (given enough time) would probably point out.
- yunohn 5y agoDo you have some sources for this claim? Or just a belief?
- whitepaint 5y agoHigh quality protocols like PoolTogether for example have this: https://docs.pooltogether.com/security/audits-and-testing https://docs.pooltogether.com/security/audits-and-testing
- yunohn 5y agoMost people have never heard of PoolTogether, so I’m not sure if your definition of “first tier” and “high quality” is objective. Regardless, this quote from your link stands out: “it should never be expected that 100% of the deployed code has been formally audited.”
- whitepaint 5y agoIt has $175 M locked in the protocol, it is also featured on https://ethereum.org/en/dapps/ https://ethereum.org/en/dapps/, and is one of the oldest DeFI projects. By my definition, it is both "first tier" and "high quality". We can of course have the philosophical debate of objectivity and if such thing even exists, not sure if it's needed here though. The audits of this protocol is also continuous.
- yunohn 5y ago175M$ is like 1/4th of the hack that this thread is discussing. Also, they specifically state that not everything is audited? Nowhere do they mention continuous audits.
- whitepaint 5y agoYou are right, it's not mentioned, but they do in fact spend hundreds of thousands every few months for audits. You'll find more info here: https://gov.pooltogether.com/ https://gov.pooltogether.com/
- bawolff 5y agoAuditors have never fully prevented bugs in any other computing domain, i dont know why cryptocurrency would be any different.
- pedalpete 5y agoCan't the same be said that auditors have never fully prevented fraud in the real-world?
- bko 5y agoAs this space evolves, I think there will be insurance and basic best practice safety measures. Also considering that almost all blockchains are open by design, it's no trivial task to liquidate a large sum of stolen tokens. So its not exactly a straight path from writing a script at Starbucks to making hundreds of millions of dollars.