Quote from: haendehochueberfall on June 28, 2016, 03:39:26 PM

"recursive call attack"
"weakness in underlying language "solidity""

google (better than listening to bagholder-talk)

also check out "call for dao moratorium" to see how they did ignore expert opinion because of greed.
The exact attack was pointed out to them and they did ... nothing .. well, they said it was fixed but that wasn't true. Now it blew up in their face exactly like experts predicted. It's a joke for the investors.

Some say it's because of 'touring complete' and it will be very hard (if not impossible) to code secure contracts on that platform. Yes, buggy contracts can even after numerous fixes and upcoming hardforks still be expected. No, the contracts aren't secure for all i know. And also not soon. It's by no means a 'realiable coin'.

Academics said: "there is so many attack vectors they cancel each other out."

I don't think it'll be any good anytime soon. Wait 5 years and look at contracts like this again. Currently it turned out to be useless. Decades of dvelopement ahead. Overvaluing like this was pure madness and rampant speculation with no brains involved.

Thanks to all replies!

Do I understand correctly, that other ETH projects are "buggy" for the same reason as DAO, and it's better to avoid any project based on "contracts"?

Hardfork will not change the situation, will it?