153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by corndoge on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @08:14PM (#14809093)

the story you are commenting on is a good example

it should not be this easy to lose sixteen million dollars

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by Will_Do on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @08:43PM (#14809225)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by xrd on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @11:06PM (#14809778)

Microtransactions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by JohnJamesRambo on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @09:56PM (#14809508)

*intelligent

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by patejam on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @08:36PM (#14809198)

I feel like we shouldn't be expressed in dollars, but in percentage of total funds. In this case 16 million is about 1% of the total. This would be a $16 billion case if the US banking system was the target and used this technology.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by rubidium on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @08:58PM (#14809297)

That... doesn't make a difference in my mind. Losing 1% of people's money is _very_ unacceptable and worth being laughed at for.

Financial institutions are accurate to tiny tiny fractions of percentage points. Not "eh we got 99% of it right".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by hinkley on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @09:27PM (#14809398)

Especially when the odds are that it will happen again soon.

[ Parent | on HN ]