I disagree, because historically major cryptos have allowed known attacks to succeed if they targeted a member of the public at large, and have defended only if they targeted named insiders.
The expectation, at this point, is that defense will only occur if you are an elite insider. An unknown user may or may not be such an elite, and thus may or may not get defense.
> I disagree, because historically major cryptos have allowed known attacks to succeed if they targeted a member of the public at large, and have defended only if they targeted named insiders.
Surely you aren't going to make such a statement without examples! I can think of examples where things were attacked, including some of the largest value destructions, and insider status didn't help. For example, the multisig thing that happened to Gav Wood (the second time).
If your lone example is the Dao attack, that looked like successful governance to me.
The astounding, insane decision to use "libraries" aka delegate call in any immutable smart contract always boggled my mind. The amount of space saved is so ludicrously small as to beggar belief. Hope the 10k or whatever worth of space savings (about 20 transactions worth) was worth it.
Anyway, he didn't get a roll back, and the $200m in value that disappeared didn't either.
Well he's not a US citizen and unless he's insane, his corporations are offshored in a 0% domocile. It's really only a problem for Americans; everyone else who has their shit together can stick their corporate shell on Cayman or whatever.
Yes indeed. There are a number of very interesting game-theoretic feedback loops built into bitcoin that enhance security. This is one of them.