undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJulianMorrison12y ago0 comments

I am less worried about while(1){} and more about viruses (either in-system or breaking out of it via exploits) roaming the blockchain semi-autonomously stealing or spying.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

oleganza12y ago· 2 in thread

Ether scripts are not operating in unrestricted environment. They are turing-complete, but their environment and available memory are very restricted. A bug in the implementation may lead to denial-of-service attacks (just like similar bugs in Bitcoin), but it does not mean there will be ether viruses spreading through the network. At worst, it could be a global DoS issue that can be quickly fixed and the entire history reversed right before the problematic transaction.

JulianMorrisonOP12y ago

I do not share your optimism. The worst case is autonomous viruses that steal to sustain their transaction fees and escape their jails to wreak havoc via buffer overruns or other similar exploits.

oleganza12y ago

Those viruses would have to exploit some bug in implementation, right? Once the bug is found, all bad blocks will be thrown away. All valid transactions will be included in new blocks.

I don't think script complexity would be the biggest obstacle to adoption, but other factors. For one, advanced script upgrades to Bitcoin that preserve existing BTC distribution of wealth would be more welcome than something from scratch. It'd be safer alternative in the eyes of the bitcoin holders, who would not need to diversify into altcoin.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse