Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability
I do not understand Ethereum well, but it seems like bigger contracts (with 10$ million worth of value) could be built on top of smaller ones which have been proven (with time) to be correct and not contain mistakes.We all know that smaller pieces of code can be more easily reviewed and understand. I think that this applies for simpler contracts with smaller value. If a contract has been running for a while without being exploited, then it means that it is pretty solid, and others can build on top of that contract.It is an interesting dynamic, because there is an incentive to exploit bad contracts, and the contracts that have ran a long amount of time and and that have not been exploited yet are thus trusted to be unexploitable (because no-one exploited them)If that is how it works, it means that Ethereum will eventually because a fail-proof system. However, one should not mistakenly create contracts from the ground up or using untrusted sub-contracts. The ones who do so will see their contract exploited and everyone will learn from that mistake.Edit: Seems like Vitalik Buterin asking people to get that patch if they agree for the Ethereum ecosystem to move in that direction is just creating opportunity for fragmentation in the community. It would make more sense to let that "exploit" become a lesson instead of trying to work around this non-issue.