3 ms·

This is a really interesting set of observations by Vitalik, but (as I’m sure we all know) it wasn’t a 51% that did this hack.

• udbhavs 5y ago
  I think they mean whether it was a 51% or not, a flaw on the Solana side of the ecosystem caused a loss of native Ethereum assets for users because it was on a bridge, even though nothing was broken on the Ethereum side.
  • pfraze 5y ago
    That doesn’t really affect the exploit; this exploit isn’t worse because it involved a bridge. Vitalik is talking about how bridges interact with 51% attacks and nothing else, so his points are interesting but not relevant to this. > even though nothing was broken on the Ethereum side The smart contract code was wrong, not Solano itself. This situation was made no worse by dint of being a bridge or involving two blockchains, except that it required domain knowledge in both chains.