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.

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 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 4:01:40 AM 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

2 sources
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

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.