I always though that Etherium had a huge attack surface. Each script has to be security audited, etc. That's the thing about Bitcoin. It's as simple as possible while still being secure and useful and has been beat up and audited by the best security pros in the world. Distributed Systems are not easy. Secure distributed systems with Byzantine fault tolerance are even harder. Etherium is just trying to do too much.
Doesn't this show an issue with the Distributed Systems on Ethereum, with every script that has to be audited individually, and not with the platform itself?
I'm with you on the fact that proper auditing is an absolute must, as this DAO fiasco shows, but I don't think this event exposes any flaws in the Ethereum platform itself.
I recently attended an Ethereum workshop that was scheduled for two hours. Three hours later and most of the audience were no more wise about Ethereum than when they first entered the room. It certainly didn't help that workshop was led by web developer (a passionate Ethereum supporter) who had no interest in the concensus algorithm or other dense technical issues, but what was quickly apparent to me was that Ethereum has a steep learning curve. With such technologies, it is important to take more time to understand the concepts and the details. Maybe in the rush for VC money, some developers have failed to grasp that.
I've held a similar opinion, but lately with the run up in the Ethereum price I was worried that I was missing something other people saw. Apparently this isn't a vulnerability in Ethereum itself, but it may still have serious consequences for the network.
There are plenty of proposals to add complexity to the Bitcoin system. I hope that people promoting those proposals pay attention to this example of the problems complexity will inevitably cause.
