5chdn

Curious why people think so w.r.t. (2). Anyone can submit a proposal.

EIP 867 which you are referring to is in limbo, this is not conforming with the ERP.

Exactly. It is the library used by hundreds of wallets. The library itself does not hold any balance.

Thanks for not reading the linked article, I'm explaining this very same example in the first paragraph :)

lol :D

But that's precisely my point. Pruned Ethereum nodes hold _all_ blocks and therefore are full nodes. In Ethereum, unlike pruning Bitcoin nodes, old blocks are not deleted.

But a pruned bitcoin node does not hold the full blockchain for other nodes to download. A pruned Ethereum node, however, does.

Miners are already incentivized not to mess with the state.

Confirming this always was and still is the case. (Working for Parity.) However, this does not guarantee that such mistakes happen.

Parity does not run on the EVM, it's a local node processing a local copy of the blockchain. You can create normal accounts which are just private/public keypairs you have full control of without anything "being in the cloud" or "distributed". What you are referring to might be the vulnerable multi-signature wallet itself, which - once deployed - runs on the EVM. And that only affects a fraction of Parity users.

Note, I work for Parity.

Not directly, but Parity multi-signagure wallets on Ethereum Classic, Expanse, Musicoin, and other public chains are affected as well.

Not at all. Solidity is just the most widely used language for the EVM. There are also Mutan (dead), Serpent (dying), LLL (recently revived), and Viper (being drafted).

The code was reviewed by two other developers and this is the standard procedure for any pull request touching any of our code-base. The mistake that happened here, that security-relevant changes were not highlighted accordingly and should have split out in a different pull request which requires more eyes (sample: https://github.com/paritytech/contracts/pull/48).

Note, I work for Parity.