HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
paritytech
parity
HISTORICAL RECORD2017–2018
paritytech / parity · Not publicly available

parity

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
25Distinct people
27Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month27 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2017-07-19 21:08:22 UTC to 2018-04-15 18:39:31 UTC.

0510152017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 17 mentions; 0 submissions, 17 commentsJul 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 commentsNov 20172017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsApr 2018

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 20172017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC17017
Aug 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20172017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20172017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 20172017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC413
Dec 20172017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20182018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20182018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Apr 20182018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

27 sources
Everlag·Apr 15, 2018
From diving in, it looks like the contract backing a smart wallet implementation had a vulnerability/bug/design flaw allowing an arbitrary actor to kill it[0]. It looks like these contracts are treated as a shared library so the contract being killed means any wallet depending on it is bricked. The solution here seems to be a hard fork of Ethereum to allow revival of that problem contract. This seems unpalatable as, well, avoiding extensive human intervention is a key idea in cryptocoins. Disclaimer: I got off the cryptocoin train awhile back so if I've mistaken anything, please point it out. [0] https://github.com/paritytech/parity/issues/6995
In Proposal to restore a destroyed Ethereum contract
tylersmith·Mar 8, 2018
> The consensus model is based on human review of the underlying code; humans get to decide whether to include a block in their version of the repository. Since git commits can easily be signed (and IMO should be most of the time), when I explain this I usually try to describe the consensus algorithm as being based on a set of known valid signers which I think further helps bridge the gap for people that understand "proof of authority" chains. https://github.com/paritytech/parity/wiki/Proof-of-Authority...
In ‘Blockchain’ is meaningless
masklinn·Jul 23, 2017
> does anyone know why they chose Rust instead of Go for the Parity client? Maybe ask them? According to their FAQ (https://github.com/paritytech/parity/wiki#our-priorities): > Minimise Moving Parts: While Rust is multi-paradigm, we aim to write intra-function logic in as functional a manner as possible. Mutability is avoided except where necessary for the algorithm or efficiency. > Minimum Footprint, Maximum Performance: Maximise references, minimise copying and holding copies. Rust makes it safe. When there are dynamic data structures, provide means for keeping them under control. > Reliability: Through Rust's language-level memory and thread guarantees and a disciplined approach to exception-handling we can state with a high degree of certainty that our code cannot crash, hang or bomb-out unexpectedly. But I can't tell you that's all o
Read the rest
f the story. In the original announcement thread on /r/ethereum, the main point of comparison was C++ rather than Go so ymmv.
In Why I’m Frustrated with Go
nemetroid·Jul 22, 2017
This postmortem is disingenious at best and lying at worst. > The restructuring of the original multi-sig wallet contract happened as part of a much larger change, namely the introduction of the Wallet user-interface, a 4000-line, almost entirely Javascript, CSS and HTML alteration. The pull request in question[0] adds 2228 lines and removes 918. Not sure how this adds up to 4000 lines. But let's look at those lines: * 685 were in a related "wallet.sol" file, though most of it due to changing indentation from 2 to 4 spaces. If you revert that, the diff goes down to 79 lines. * 793 were in the buggy contract, "enhanced_wallet.sol". Same thing applies here, 520 lines were due to the change in indentation spaces. * 477 + 466 lines are what appears to be auto-generated JSON related to the above. Summing it up, out of the claimed 4000 lines: *
Read the rest
854 were pure exaggeration, * 1126 were whitespace changes, * 943 were autogenerated files related to the contracts, * 79 were in a related contract, * 273 were in the buggy contract, * 725 were other changes, * 0 were HTML or CSS changes. Perhaps the "alteration" referred to also includes related changes not part of the same pull request, though I was not able to find any related pull requests close in time to this one. But since the article refers to a 4000-line "alteration" which supposedly consists mainly of HTML, CSS and Javascript, I sure hope there is some other changeset referred to, and that this is not just a blatant lie. > The first and biggest change will be to ensure that any alterations to the codebase that involve live contract code (which can be generally identified through .sol files) be reviewed by Solidity experts. At present the multi-sig wallet is the only Solidity code that is user-deployable and in wide use within Parity. A few paragraphs up, you say that you already had exactly that policy: > Changes which are understood to be sensitive (such as with contracts or core consensus code) are tagged as such and undergo a greater level of review, generally two or more expert reviews. At no point does Parity seem to take responsibility for what happened, and the article ends with a paragraph trying to shift blame to the design of the Solidity language. [0]: https://github.com/paritytech/parity/pull/4805
In The Multi-Sig Hack: A Postmortem

Showing the 15 most recent of 27 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.