4 ms·
> At least we found out early that this isn't going to work. $US150M later isn't early
by alfiedotwtf 10y ago
> At least we found out early that this isn't going to work.
$US150M later isn't early
- reustle 10y agoMaybe that just means the $150M was early too
- jacquesm 10y agoThat's called a bug bounty.
- cloudjacker 10y agoThis guy
- pjc50 10y agoI came up with "self-distributing bug bounty piñata" in the last DAO-failure discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11921677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11921677
- jacquesm 10y agoHehe, that's even better. But it is the essence of the matter. If you put $100M in a bucket you've just incentivized the worlds bad guys to audit your production in order to figure out how to open the bucket to get to the loot. And this goes for all of commerce, which is an important realization: security is not an all-or-nothing proposition, it is an economic affair. Whatever you wish to secure, you can expect to expend a reasonably constant fraction of that on the act of securing it. So if you wish to secure $100M you will have to do a much better job than if you wish to secure $10M or $1M, just like you're going to spend more money on the lock for a $1k bike than a $25 junker. When DOA ended up being over-subscribed they should have immediately yanked the emergency brake because whatever plans they had would end up being moot by virtue of storing more money in the bucket than they originally planned. Their security measures would by definition not have been up to the task because they had planned to secure a much smaller amount. Either that or they were ridiculously over-confident.
- drcode 10y agoMeh, the money is going to likely be routed back to the original owners via a fork.