
The $280M Ethereum bug - kushti
https://blog.comae.io/the-280m-ethereums-bug-f28e5de43513
======
ecesena
Discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642856](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642856)

------
Legogris
Misleading title. This was not a bug in Ethereum, but in the code for a
particular popular multi-sig wallet people use on Ethereum. I don't mean to
trivialize it, but this is kind of like saying "Bitcoin was hacked" when MtGox
went down.

~~~
swsieber
Kinda - your point is technically true.

OTOH, Ethereum really encourages these types of bugs due to how it's setup.

These types of bugs are characteristic to things written in Solidity. So no,
Ethereum didn't have a bug, it just encourages buggy programs, and this is
great example.

~~~
DiNovi
this same logic means the internet encourages bugs

~~~
sn0risn
The internet does encourage bugs.

~~~
vernon99
“The $280M internet bug”?

------
Zamicol
It's not an ethereum bug, it's a parity bug.

Ethereum worked exactly as coded.

~~~
Legogris
Not even a bug in Parity, but in a smart contract made by the Parity team.

------
45h34jh53k4j
I dont think its fair to say a code review would have fixed this -- its an
operational bug. They failed to initialise the library (ie: assigning
ownership) after deploying it.

Last time the smart contract let anyone initialise it (which was a code
problem).

Either way its pretty much the end of Parity. I bet those PolkaDot investors
are going to be mad when their tokens are worthless!

------
viach
Why didn't they choose at least pure functional language for smart contracts?
Imo that would reduce the amount of dramas...

~~~
tytytytytytytyt
How would it have done that?

~~~
viach
No mutable state, no objects, just one way flow of data transformation. For
example [https://www.fstar-lang.org](https://www.fstar-lang.org)

