[homakov]

This is unfair to banish a company for not having enough "security experience". It could happen to anyone (i mean making such a design mistake), plus they afaik had some external audits.

"Aha, no security background!" is wrong.

[afrenchcoder]

How is it unfair ? We're speaking about crypto-currency here. "crypto" is so damn hard than even experts make mistakes indesign or implementation, and very often in both. And when they don't, it still doesn't mean it's secure... And now it's ok to have no expert and to use the result to manage _currency_ ?!? It might sound weird, but yeah, I'd like to have knowledgeable people to deal with my money

[qbrass]

People complained about the same criticism of MtGox back in the day.

[IncRnd]

Actually, "Aha, no security background!" is the exact right attitude to have.

[mjfl]

It is absolutely fair to banish a company for security credentials if it's dangling $150 million out in the open air.

[dang]

> What are you talking about?

Please don't be uncivil. It's damaging to collegial conversation, and it's against the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Please edit such stuff out of your comments here.

[mjfl]

edited.

[dang]

Appreciated!

[drcode]

> if it's dangling $150 million out in the open air.

The ethereum foundation didn't do this, the slock.it team is a separate group responsible for this bug.

[heliumcraft]

The Ethereum Foundation had nothing to do with the creation of the DAO.

[burkaman]

That's like saying The Pirate Bay has nothing to do with piracy.

[heliumcraft]

It's like saying the WEB and HTTP protocol have nothing do with a SQL injection on some website.