October 9, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

When Smart Contracts Act Stupid: Is Your ICO Smart Contract Safe & Secure?

When smart contracts act stupid: is your ico smart contract safe & secure?

When Smart Contracts Act Stupid: Is Your ICO Smart Contract Safe & Secure?

The potential inherent in smart contracts is immense. The nascent technology may be used for identity verification, secure data sharing, and for the management of tokens and raised funds in an initial coin offering/token sale – but just how clever are your smart contracts?


The Ethereum network boasts more than 1500 decentralized applications (dApps), all of which make use of smart contracts to accomplish a wide variety of tasks. The problem with smart contracts, however, is the fact that they are code-based and thus inherently prone to mistakes – some of which can be nothing less than catastrophic.

Smart Contract Basics

To put it simply, a smart contract is a code that contains a set of rules and executes automatically, without a third party, if the rules of the contract are met. This differs greatly from a paper contract, which is always enforced by a third party.

However, because smart contracts are code based, they are prone to errors, bugs, and weaknesses – which put funds at risk of theft and manipulation.

When Smart Contracts Act Stupid

One of the most notorious examples of a poorly-coded smart contract came from the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), which was designed to fund cryptocurrency projects not determined by any one person or group. Essentially, DAO token holders were allowed to vote on the projects which merited funding – which led to a total purchase of $250 million in ether before tragedy struck.

Two sections of the code in question were responsible for the collapse of the much-hyped DAO project, which resulted in a controversial hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain into Ethereum Classic.

The two functions responsible were ‘splitDAO’ and ‘withdrawRewardFor’ — though they were not vulnerable by themselves. Together, however, hackers were able to vacuum up 4 million ether. Consequently, the Ethereum community was more-or-less forced to perform a 51 percent attack on its own blockchain, re-writing it as though the stolen funds were never lost.

Another and more recent bug was discovered in the smart contract used by Parity. The smart contract in question was exploited and resulted in the loss of half a million ether — worth upwards of $169 million. 70 wallets were frozen and access to the money held within was lost.

Parity actually admitted to having been warned about the flaw months before the bug was triggered. However, they did not fix the issue, later stating:

However, rather than just having more audits, we strongly believe that more extensive and formal procedures and tooling around the deployment, monitoring and testing of contracts will be needed to achieve security. We believe that the entire ecosystem as a whole is in urgent need of such procedures and tooling to prevent similar issues from happening again, in particular, if and when the number and complexity of live contracts grows.

Parity was hacked again via smart contract vulnerabilities in June 2017, resulting in the theft of 150,000 ether.

What’s wrong with ethereum-based smart contracts?

What’s Wrong With Ethereum-based Smart Contracts?

Ethereum’s main problem is that it’s largely constructed in Solidity – an advanced coding language. As such, many programmers must learn an entirely new coding language, which increases the chance of human error.

Unfortunately, many new projects lack the experience and/or time to properly audit their smart contracts. This is where solutions like COINAdmin come in – which assist in the completion and subsequent audit of smart contracts and verify that the code is free from vulnerabilities.

COINAdmin has a dedicated team of blockchain developers who specialize in the development of ERC-20 and ERC-223 smart contracts. It also fully supports thorough third-party audits and handles everything on the technical front – affording ICO teams the ability to focus on other aspects of their business ventures.

COINAdmin’s full solution lets projects issue their own ICO tokens while saving time and money. To learn more, check out the official website at coinadmin.com, or email [email protected].

What do you think about smart contract vulnerabilities and companies like COINAdmin? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of AdobeStock

Published at Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:05 +0000

Altcoin News

Previous Article

MYSTERY SECRETS of the Occult – Gnosis Magick Documentary

Next Article

CloakCoin: Is privacy overrated? Crypto community weighs in

You might be interested in …

Re: 台当局申请改名台驻美机构 遭美国断然驳回

Re: 台当局申请改名台驻美机构 遭美国断然驳回

Re: 台当局申请改名台驻美机构 遭美国断然驳回 海外网4月6日电 据环球时报消息,英文和美国总统特朗普通话后,台当局以为台美关系可以更进一步,驻美机构因此提出改名要求,结果被美方断然驳回。 台当局做出的“外交试探”是提出把在美国的驻美代表处,即“驻美国台北经济文化代表处”中的“台北”二字改为“台湾”。据亲绿的《自由时报》5日报道,驻美代表处日前奉命到美国国务院“叩门”,但得到的回应是“这是在破坏现状”。换言之,“直接给了不小的钉子碰”。消息传回岛内,台外事部门负责人李大维大怒,特地把美国在台协会台北办事处官员找到办公室,称所谓破坏现状的说法,他不能接受。台外事部门查证的结果也让绿营“恼火”。1979年,台驻美馆处的名称从“驻美大使馆”改为“北美事务协调委员会驻美国办事处”,以及1994年再改为现在的台北经济文化代表处,“两次都是美方径行告知,根本没有讨价还价的余地”。此前在2004年陈水扁当政时,美国国务院也明确表示,美国不支持台湾驻外代表处改名,因为这些变化看来是片面改变台湾现状,而美国反对任何改变现状的片面行动。 事实上,这不是蔡当局在驻美机构更名上的第一次小动作。据海外网了解,2016年,蔡英文当局一上台便对“驻美代表”这样的称呼已经转换成“驻美大使”,人们甚至担心她派往其他国家的代表也会换相应的称呼,包括在WHA(世界卫生大会)的大会上,他们甚至表示如果有机会演讲,可能会提出所谓的“主权抗议”。 对此,国台办发言人马晓光当时即作出回应。马晓光表示,国际社会普遍奉行一个中国政策。台湾在美机构及其负责人身份、地位的界定是十分清楚的。我们坚决反对任何在国际上制造“两个中国”、“一中一台”和“台湾独立”的行径。至于台湾参与世界卫生大会的问题,马晓光表示,我们已经多次指出并强调,台湾方面参与世界卫生大会,是在一个中国原则下做出的特殊安排。 马晓光表示,我们以一个中国原则对待台湾的对外交往问题,坚决反对任何企图在国际上制造“两个中国”、“一中一台”和“台湾独立”的行径。一个中国原则得到国际社会的普遍承认。如果企图在国际上进行“台独”分裂活动,搞“两个中国”、“一中一台”是不可能得逞的。 (Why?) Published at Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:06:23 +0000 [wpr5_ebay kw=”bitcoin” num=”1″ ebcat=”” cid=”5338043562″ lang=”en-US” country=”0″ sort=”bestmatch”]DSCF6168Butterfly Labs 25 GH/s bitcoin Miner BitForce Little Single SCBy […]