News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Dissecting Ponzi schemes on Ethereum: identification, ana... by zenlikethat on Thursday June 01, 2017 @12:01PM (#14461435)
I agree having a company trying to produce revenue is arguably more valuable, but keep in mind cryptocurrency isn't _just_ a string of numbers -- what you're buying into is a massive network of machines verifying your transactions and protecting the system from things like double-spends. Sure, Bitcoin has scaling issues, but there is still an insane amount of computing power backing it, and that isn't changing. I'm not 100% sure I see as much value in Ethereum, for sure -- since throwing that much computing power at verifying programs is more dubious to me, as is the switch to proof of stake.
Re:Dissecting Ponzi schemes on Ethereum: identification, ana... by DennisP on Thursday June 01, 2017 @02:30PM (#14463036)
Ethereum does the same thing as Bitcoin. It's just that you can also have scripts on the network that move money around.
Re:Dissecting Ponzi schemes on Ethereum: identification, ana... by zenlikethat on Friday June 02, 2017 @06:37PM (#14473798)
That's as much a liability as it is an asset -- for instance, https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6eruqb/if_your_ex... ("QuadrigaCX exchange lost 60000 Ether due to smart contract problems").
Re:Dissecting Ponzi schemes on Ethereum: identification, ana... by DennisP on Saturday June 03, 2017 @10:36AM (#14476546)
You have to be careful, but people have gotten a lot better at being careful. The contract used by QuadrigaCX was written last summer, and violated a well-known best practice, which is no longer necessary due to an improvement in Solidity. Human error is always a problem, but these days it's common to hire at least one security auditor for any contract that handles nontrivial amounts of money. (I'm a full-time Solidity dev/auditor.)

It's still a little scary, but I'd say it's less scary than safety-critical embedded code.