Re:The Multi-Sig Hack: A Postmortem
by bitmapbrother on Saturday July 22, 2017 @01:42AM
(#14825599)
Is Haskell or ML 100% secure and not prone to bugs? The original multi-sig wallet code did not contain the error. It was only when Parity refactored it did they introduce the error. Sure, it would have been nice had Solidity not defaulted functions to public, but the error was the fault of a human and not the language. That said, I agree with their recommendations that functions not default to public and the use of simple contracts encapsulating complex contracts.
No, not inherently more secure, but probably more developers around who already understand the core semantics. Also, tools.
The core is written in Rust which is at least as strong as ML.
The bug was in the contract language, https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/
Re:The Multi-Sig Hack: A Postmortem
by tsukaisute on Saturday July 22, 2017 @01:34AM
(#14825582)
Strictly speaking, the bug was not in the language itself, but in a specific contract's code.
Looks like it needs some work, anyway:
Re:The Multi-Sig Hack: A Postmortem
by tylersmith on Saturday July 22, 2017 @01:55AM
(#14825649)
The language and the underlying EVM code worked exactly as intended. The bug was in the contract written by Parity.
Why start from scratch and not use something like Haskell or ML? I don't understand why they're reinventing the wheel when there's a chance that millions could be stolen..