Cryptocurrencies are being sold as eliminating trust and allow us to rely on the cold certainty of mathematics. Only trust hasn't been eliminated from the system, it's just been shifted from a central bank to the authors of the software client you're using. To the majority of the miners in the network.
The awful politics, lies, greed, corruption, are still here in all their glory.
Yeah, I don't see the difference here. So it was an aspect of Ethereum that had the vulnerability, how many more millions have to be stolen before the system is successfully QA'd?
I'd never heard of Ethereum before, so now this is the only thing I've heard about it.
The article stating that it wasn't a vulnerability with Parity AND THEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER stating it was a vulnerability with code distributed BY PARITY is throwing up all sorts of red flags with me.
Like the Wizard of OZ with "There is nothing behind the curtain"
I can see what you're saying, but I don't think that this is a problem with cryptocurrencies specifically, it's a problem with buggy software, yes, but it's something that is the case with every dangerous exploit being actively taken advantage of in the wild, Heartbleed would be an example that doesn't involve cryptocurrencies, but I give you that the Ether-based ecosystem seems to be a particularly buggy collection of software, probably because of too much ambition, (a Turing-complete VM), being written by people with too little experience and applied for very sensitive (monetary) transactions, which seems like a recipe for disaster.