News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack. Parent comment

Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack by intricatedetail on Sunday May 16, 2021 @07:03PM (#27178001)
Why contracts don't have a test suite that verifies them?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack by o-__-o on Sunday May 16, 2021 @09:19PM (#27179060)
They do, if you don’t have 100% code coverage then you get what you get
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack by NateEag on Sunday May 16, 2021 @10:00PM (#27179334)
100% code coverage isn't even close to a guarantee of correctness.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack by o-__-o on Sunday May 16, 2021 @11:03PM (#27179684)
But is the easiest metric to guage test quality. What I’m saying is this code is probably not well tested
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack by dr_zoidberg on Monday May 17, 2021 @06:29AM (#27181956)
This code isn't tested at all. They messed up copying code from a previous implementation, that's how bad this is. If they had had a few basic tests in place they would've spotted this before it even had a chance to be a problem.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack by o-__-o on Thursday May 20, 2021 @04:15AM (#27218690)
Then the problem has zero to do with the type of testing, now does it :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack by masklinn on Monday May 17, 2021 @06:05AM (#27181768)
Because the entire field is nonsense and pyramid schemes. Ethereum derives their smart contract langage from JavaScript for fuck’s sake. That alone should tell you that their interest was always to disregard everything in order to maximise adoption. And then they added pitfalls to JavaScript because it was not broken enough for their tastes.
[ Parent | on HN ]