3 ms·

It seems there's a nice economical limit on script execution. If the contract during its executing consumes more resources (ops + memory) than fees attached to

It seems there's a nice economical limit on script execution. If the contract during its executing consumes more resources (ops + memory) than fees attached to it, the it's simply considered invalid. That computation is done after the money is locked and the fee is attached, so if you do while(1){}, you are basically donating to a miner. I haven't finished reading everything yet, so I maybe totally incorrect. But I doubt Vitalik didn't consider these issues.

JulianMorrison 13y ago
I am less worried about while(1){} and more about viruses (either in-system or breaking out of it via exploits) roaming the blockchain semi-autonomously stealing or spying.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Ether scripts are not operating in unrestricted environment. They are turing-complete, but their environment and available memory are very restricted. A bug in the implementation may lead to denial-of-service attacks (just like similar bugs in Bitcoin), but it does not mean there will be ether viruses spreading through the network. At worst, it could be a global DoS issue that can be quickly fixed and the entire history reversed right before the problematic transaction.
  - JulianMorrison 13y ago
    I do not share your optimism. The worst case is autonomous viruses that steal to sustain their transaction fees and escape their jails to wreak havoc via buffer overruns or other similar exploits.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      Those viruses would have to exploit some bug in implementation, right? Once the bug is found, all bad blocks will be thrown away. All valid transactions will be included in new blocks. I don't think script complexity would be the biggest obstacle to adoption, but other factors. For one, advanced script upgrades to Bitcoin that preserve existing BTC distribution of wealth would be more welcome than something from scratch. It'd be safer alternative in the eyes of the bitcoin holders, who would not need to diversify into altcoin.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

JulianMorrison 13y ago

I am less worried about while(1){} and more about viruses (either in-system or breaking out of it via exploits) roaming the blockchain semi-autonomously stealing or spying.

oleganza 13y ago
Ether scripts are not operating in unrestricted environment. They are turing-complete, but their environment and available memory are very restricted. A bug in the implementation may lead to denial-of-service attacks (just like similar bugs in Bitcoin), but it does not mean there will be ether viruses spreading through the network. At worst, it could be a global DoS issue that can be quickly fixed and the entire history reversed right before the problematic transaction.
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  I do not share your optimism. The worst case is autonomous viruses that steal to sustain their transaction fees and escape their jails to wreak havoc via buffer overruns or other similar exploits.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Those viruses would have to exploit some bug in implementation, right? Once the bug is found, all bad blocks will be thrown away. All valid transactions will be included in new blocks. I don't think script complexity would be the biggest obstacle to adoption, but other factors. For one, advanced script upgrades to Bitcoin that preserve existing BTC distribution of wealth would be more welcome than something from scratch. It'd be safer alternative in the eyes of the bitcoin holders, who would not need to diversify into altcoin.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]