Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the cryptocurrency space attracts only the brightest minds .
My favorite smack-talk so far is "Dunning-Krugerrands".
That pun is golden.
153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
391–400 of 754 posts
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DAO hit every objection from smart contract skeptics, bang bang bang - legal code doesn't work at all like computer code, immutability means you can't fix mistakes, immutability means you can't deal with changes in circumstance, immutability means you must code with 0 bugs - but even we were surprised when they went "lol immutability guarantee" the second the big boys were in danger of losing money.
It's almost as if software technology can't magically solve problems inherent in the flawed nature of humanity.
That's a strawman of what GP said. Of course technology can't solve humanity's flaws. The point was that smart contracts caused many problems they weren't meant to, which was exemplified by the DAO hack. Smart contracts failed to deliver on their promise and the fallout proved that when it came down to brass tax, nobody with skin in the game would respect a smart contract's execution anyway.
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it very hard? Can't one simply use Coinbase? > And then the IRS will want to know where you are suddenly getting a huge amount of money from. In my experience, the IRS is largely unconcerned with where you are getting money from. They just want you to declare it, and pay taxes on it. If you treat Bitcoin as ordinary income and pay taxes on it at the highest available rate, the IRS will largely be satisfied. If…
I think coinbase's withdrawal limits aren't quite high enough for this amount of cash
A bit. They limit to 10,000 per day which would be 300 transactions total for $30 million.
I'd personally call them and get a contract out before funneling this kind of money through their system.
Though that's pretty normal. A regular brick and mortar bank would likely want additional assurances before funneling $30 million into or out of an account that doesn't see that regular volume.
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#394Let me guess... another hard fork to undo this.
I know this is a joke, but what would prevent the thief from attaching high transaction costs to the withdrawal of ETH from the target wallets? Say they place 50% of the value into the transaction costs - miners would assume a healthy profit off of the theft and it wouldn't be beneficial for them to rollback the chain.
A hypothetical hacker could robin hood easily then.. only steal coins from wallets with massive amounts, and "give them away" to miners via transaction costs
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
It's closest to the middle, assuming that you meant that you're stating the properties that you want to test. It does more than that, but at its base that's effectively how it works so it's close enough for a solid intuition. We're working on a paper about it now -- or at least a sub-paper in the clutch of papers that pertain to a public chain version -- that I'll link to when it's out (a couple weeks probably).
Oh. Dear?
(I mean, I understand the pressures of academia, but... ridiculously bad timing, yeah?)
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
the story you are commenting on is a good example it should not be this easy to lose sixteen million dollars
Yes. If a similar scale thing were to happen in the U.S. banking system, 1% would be 160 billion dollars, not 16. I'm amazed that otherwise intelligence people really believe this is a better system than fiat currencies + banks.
*intelligent
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. It will take time, but eventually Solidity (or some other alternative smart contracts approach) will likely be very trustworthy and secure.
I'm sorry but we have 6 decades of fundamental security research that has shown that it is essentially impossible to have a sufficiently complex, secure system. The idea that we will ever stop needing human arbiters is laughable and pure hubris.
It's a matter of scope. You can build a secure currency exchange protocol: I have yet to hear of a technical issue with BTC that threatens its raison d'être.
But when you're making a distributed, general purpose, scriptable contracting platform at some point you ought to consider trimming the core way down.
Maybe if the contracts had more constrained semantics ETH programming would be less scary, at the cost of some bells and whistles or more verbose syntax.
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's correct. If you only revert the stolen money transactions and all the branches of them since, almost nobody loses. The few stolen ETH that got sold will be a loss, but it's nothing compared to $35M.
And you'll revert them to what? the buggy contract?
It's a hard fork. The contract would be fixed. But you could also send the victim's money anywhere, just ask the victim where they want it, there are only 3 major ones.
Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can literally feel how Ethereum changes the law. I mean, seriously, no need for lawyers anymore. On ethereum it's is simple: You got fucked, live with it. "Bad faith? It's the code, didn't you read it?"
I realize that was probably satire or sarcasm or both, but since I've seen people actually seriously take that position I'm going to go ahead and respond as if it was serious. How do these smart contract deal with the real world? I can see how they can work for things that entirely involve activities that take place on the block chain (e.g., a smart contract that automatically pays a crowd funded project if and only…
> neither deserving the name Peerless
Sir that is a prejudicial statement and I want it stricken from the record.