I offer that anyone who did the work that these researchers did would have also been “rightful owners” of that money.
This is the consequence of programmable money; there’s no getting around it, and, in my opinion, people shouldn’t want to. Rescuing people and brands who don’t put the effort into security from the consequences of their own mistakes isn’t a net benefit.
I'm all for anonymous teams, but look at the hoops this person had to jump through just to get in touch with them to report the bug.
When you're anonymous, all you have is your brand, and theirs should have burned to the ground for this entirely preventable error.
I agree with this. The whole "value" proposition of cryptocurrency is that there is no governing authority, no undo, no takebacks, the code is the only law. If that's _not_ what you want, you should 100% be using a bank instead.
All that "rescuing" people who have fucked up does is make the system seem more artificially reliable than it is. Providing a failsafe to people who have very deliberately and explicitly eschewed failsafes (at extreme effort and by subverting the system itself, no less) seems rather pointless and paternalistic.
This is the consequence of programmable money; there’s no getting around it, and, in my opinion, people shouldn’t want to. Rescuing people and brands who don’t put the effort into security from the consequences of their own mistakes isn’t a net benefit.
I'm all for anonymous teams, but look at the hoops this person had to jump through just to get in touch with them to report the bug.
When you're anonymous, all you have is your brand, and theirs should have burned to the ground for this entirely preventable error.