News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by heliumcraft on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:00PM (#11946682)
"This impacts all contracts on Ethereum, not just the DAO. This is an issue with Ethereum’s JavaScript-like programming language (Solidity)."

No it doesn't, no it's not. It affects contracts that use this functionality with arbitrary untrusted contracts (which is a bad idea), and most contracts just don't use this functionality at all.

Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by freedaemon on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:51PM (#11947144)
So it impacts the DAO and potentially impacts other deployed contracts (we don't know yet).

It's an issue with Solidity because it doesn't even do static analysis to give the programmar a warning.

It's not that programmers actively avoid doing this or are explicitly warned to not do it. When real money is at stake the language design needs to be a lot more careful.

Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by cel1ne on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:46PM (#11947091)
So you think it's safer if used among "trusted contracts"?

Even if you wrote all the contracts that are interacting like this yourself, this is an immense source for bugs. As anyone with some experience in concurrent programming or OOP can tell you.

Communication between contracts should have been defined and done via channels.

Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by drcode on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:42PM (#11947058)
Yeah, all this shadenfreude from people who (wrongly) predicted ethereum would never work, and who want to feel vindicated, is predictable but frustrating.
Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by _98fj on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:57PM (#11947208)
Not at all.

When I discovered ethereum a couple of years ago I thought it was a good idea. Partly because I was turning similar ideas in my head at the time.

But what I read now sounds like amateurs designed & implemented it. Sorry.

Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by cheez on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @05:45PM (#11949669)
And if masters had invented it, no one would be using it.
Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by 099812891 on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:51PM (#11947148)
Sure, ephemerum works in the same manner as Windows 98, Adobe Flash and sendmail.
Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by etherial on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @03:52PM (#11948916)
So hugely popular beyond anything you or anyone you know has ever made?
Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by 989182911 on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @04:33PM (#11949176)
Sure, Herbalife is also more popular than most things that diligent and intelligent persons have made.
Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by curiousgal on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @12:46PM (#11947095)
Honestly, I was in awe by r/bitcoin's reaction to this whole DAO debacle. I thought that the whole Mt Gox "incident" has taught them some empathy to people losing money but I was very wrong.
Re:Chasing the DAO Attacker’s Wake – A second exploit by vertex-four on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @01:08PM (#11947330)
Empathy? Bitcoiners? A large chunk of them are anarcho-capitalists who measure a person's right to survive by how much money they can make, and most of the rest are in it to make themselves rich. There's a fair few who are mostly in it just because it's cool tech, but they avoid Bitcoin forums now due to the former two groups.

Note that this covers most other cryptocurrencies as well.