Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

etherscan.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 754 posts

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#301

Post by lomnakkus »

buckie wrote: post #277
lomnakkus wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good indicator that these people may be experts in one area, but not necessarily in others. Language design is actually notoriously difficult in general[1], but if you're doing language design for a security-critical language[2]... well, that requires actual mechanized proof , IMO. Not just proof of "design", but proof of the implementation. Anything else is a huge gamble. (And I'm sure there are some 'investo…

> Not just proof of "design", but proof of the implementation. Absolutely, few people really get this. Even those that do get it generally don't know what it looks like in practice because it's so rare. In case you're curious about what it looks like in practice (at least one way), we presented direct user code compilation and verification[1] in Jan for our smart contract language Pact[2]. The idea that you can write…

> The idea that you can write a doc test that triggers a formal verification about some aspect of your code is, for lack of a better term, strange and yet the power to weight ratio is just off the charts.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Are you doing doctests, or are your doctests statements of formal properties, or have you abandoned that and are now doing formal specs->code type things?

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#302

Post by stale2002 »

twblalock wrote: post #76
finnh wrote: post #11

I've posted this before [0], but it's still apropos regarding the foolishness that is Ethereum. [Ethereum] only makes sense if all of the following obtain: (a) the code is 100% bug-free (b/c accidents cannot be rewound) (b) all code-writers are 100% honest (their code does what they say) (c) all contract participants are 100% perfect code readers (so as to not enter into fraudulent contracts) (Strictly speaking, only…

I would add one more point: even if both participants in a contract fully understand and agree to the contract, the contract could still be thrown out under contract law for many reasons -- unconscionability, agreement to commit a crime, etc. If Ethereum becomes popular enough, one day the participants in an Ethereum contract are going to sue each other, and the judge is not going to be impressed by arguments that th…

Ok, and now what if the two parties are anonymous or one lives in Russia?

In that case the judge can't do shit.

If you want the protections of courts, there is already a perfectly easy way to do that. And that is to use a real contract.

But if you explicitly do NOT want that, and explicitly DO want code to be law, that is what ethereum is for.

a judge can't take away the crytocurrencies of some anonymous other party.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#303

Post by davidgerard »

kensey wrote: post #300

The great thing about reading this comment thread is that I basically already read it a couple of weeks ago, because a friend of mine (David Gerard, of Wikipedia, RationalWiki and Rocknerd Internet fame) let me preview his forthcoming e-book _Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain_. There's a whole section in there about smart contracts, Ethereum, and The DAO that goes over much of what commenters here have mentioned ("non…

:-D

Ask me anything ;-) I have, like, a whole chapter about smart contracts which answers everything about this latest disaster. The idea is that it will be a handy rhetorical ammo dump for when someone asks you about those blockchain things and why the business needs them ...

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#304

Post by sum627u »

grandalf wrote: post #124
AlexandrB wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not really true. Nothing has to be perfect if there is insurance infrastructure. Why not just use a traditional financial institution then? What's the benefit of the complexity of a blockchain if it's still unreliable without the added meatspace complexity of a bank?

> Why not just use a traditional financial institution then? Insurance via smart contracts is still far simpler and more efficient to implement than in meatspace. Consider things like insurer solvency risk and the way that meatspace regulations make that hard to understand. With cryptocurrencies an insurer can easily offer proof of solvency based on all outstanding risks. Insurance emerges as a fundamental economic b…

This is nonsense. Ethereum is uninsurable. The turtles-all-the-way-down notion that you can wrap a bad "smart contract" in a bad "smart insurance contract" and buy Ethereum insurance from an Ethereum insurer and prove that there will be enough Ethereum there to make everyone whole economically should everything go to shit because a fundamental problem in Solidity lets anyone unilaterally blow the whole thing up...

I honestly don't know what to say about that. It's ludicrous.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#305

Post by cookiecaper »

matt4077 wrote: post #208
cookiecaper wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't happen. People need to believe that the justice system will hear their pleas and consider factors on-balance, and then proceed in fairness. In real law, there are several potential overrides available to stop egregiously unfair outcomes that would otherwise be legally valid (estoppel, unconscionability, etc.). People will not accept a system that does not have the appearance of fairness (regardless of its actua…

You're right on the facts, although I don't quite get why you ridicule this idea as a "sense of justice and moral righteousness" with only the "appearance of fairness". A system of laws devoid of all ambiguity and emotion isn't even possible, let alone desirable, because at some point these contracts have to come into contact reality, and the humans in it. And these humans happen to be, well: human. I guess there's a…

I don't ridicule the need to have senses of justice and moral righteousness fulfilled. I think they should be accommodated by legal systems. My point is that systems must at least pretend to do so if they want public credibility.

Ethereum, as well as things like IPFS that say "Your content is permanent and irrevocable, don't publish if you don't like that", are non-starters because they overlook this core desire to operate under forgiving systems.

Many unfair or distorted legal regimes exist (including, to some degree, the American one), but they all make overtures toward these principles in some form or another. Ethereum et al must correct this if they want widespread adoption.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#306

Post by dragonwriter »

stale2002 wrote: post #302
twblalock wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would add one more point: even if both participants in a contract fully understand and agree to the contract, the contract could still be thrown out under contract law for many reasons -- unconscionability, agreement to commit a crime, etc. If Ethereum becomes popular enough, one day the participants in an Ethereum contract are going to sue each other, and the judge is not going to be impressed by arguments that th…

Ok, and now what if the two parties are anonymous or one lives in Russia? In that case the judge can't do shit. If you want the protections of courts, there is already a perfectly easy way to do that. And that is to use a real contract. But if you explicitly do NOT want that, and explicitly DO want code to be law, that is what ethereum is for. a judge can't take away the crytocurrencies of some anonymous other party.

> Ok, and now what if the two parties are anonymous or one lives in Russia?

> In that case the judge can't do shit.

In the latter case, I'm pretty sure that (even leaving aside other mechanisms that might apply), judges and courts exist in Russia. Agreements where the parties are based indifferent countries have long been a thing, and long been enforceable by courts.

Unmasking anonymous parties, obviously, can be (though it is not always, even where it must be done) a prohibitive burden to legal action, OTOH.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#307

Post by justinjlynn »

secabeen wrote: post #285
jeffwass wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You skipped the juiciest part of one of my favorite scenes of that movie. [scared the bejeezus out of me when I was little, I didn't realise for some time it was pure satire and no adult would be expected to understand him]. So I feel obligated to post the full bit (from wikiquote) >Wonka: [angrily] Wrong, sir! Wrong! Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall becom…

>[scared the bejeezus out of me when I was little, I didn't realise for some time it was pure satire and no adult would be expected to understand him]. Yeah, as a kid, I too thought Wonka was serious. It took viewing it as a much older person to see the satire there.

I thought the most ironic part of applying it to this situation is that, just like in the story, the rules were then changed to suit the whim of the enforcer. Meaning, of course, that the rules never meant anything anyway, except to the disadvantage of one party.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#308

Post by sillysaurus3 »

Anderkent wrote: post #288
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it's an online service or a local wallet with an embedded buggy smart contract, your coins are just as gone. If you're perfectly happy to use it, you're perfectly happy to lose everything. How many millions need to be lost before this lesson is learned?

Are you saying everyone needs to write their wallet from scratch?

No... Just the opposite.

Stick with core tech. If it's not core, don't use it. It's as simple as that.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#309

Post by stale2002 »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #246
DenisM wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax forms don't have a place to declare assets, iirc, only income.

Right, so I guess I was asking: If you cash out everything as quickly as possible, no one from the government will ask where your millions came from?

Sure they will ask. And you can say something like "I was an early bitcoin investor". Or "I trade cryotcurrencies".

It is perfectly reasonable to be a cryto trade that never withdraws to USD, and just makes money by transferring between crypto currencies and ICOs or something.

I am sure there are a whole lot of people out there who spent a thousand dollars or so back in 2009, and now they have 10 mill in the bank. It is not like any of that could be tracked.

And then you pay long term capital gains on that money, and you are set.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#310

Post by dragonwriter »

sum627u wrote: post #304
grandalf wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not just use a traditional financial institution then? Insurance via smart contracts is still far simpler and more efficient to implement than in meatspace. Consider things like insurer solvency risk and the way that meatspace regulations make that hard to understand. With cryptocurrencies an insurer can easily offer proof of solvency based on all outstanding risks. Insurance emerges as a fundamental economic b…

This is nonsense. Ethereum is uninsurable. The turtles-all-the-way-down notion that you can wrap a bad "smart contract" in a bad "smart insurance contract" and buy Ethereum insurance from an Ethereum insurer and prove that there will be enough Ethereum there to make everyone whole economically should everything go to shit because a fundamental problem in Solidity lets anyone unilaterally blow the whole thing up... I…

It may not be uninsurable, but pretty clearly trying to use insurance on the platform to insure against risk that are in some sense endemic to the platform seems quite misguided.
Post reply on HN