> it's got to be the biggest, most massive security hole I've ever seen brushed off. Well said. This goes hand-in-hand with the victim blaming that goes on in

> it's got to be the biggest, most massive security hole I've ever seen brushed off. Well said. This goes hand-in-hand with the victim blaming that goes on in cryptocurrency circles. Any time a story like this appears, defenders come out of the woodwork to insist that it's the victim's fault for doing something or not doing something else. Even the linked Twitter thread is full of replies from people suggesting that the author was "asking for it". Crypto seems to appeal to people who like to think that they are smarter than the average person and therefore will succeed by self-managing their finances right down to the private keys. Adding smart contracts to the mix basically opens up a can of worms that makes it unrealistic to actually control every detail of your money unless you strictly limit each contract to a separate wallet and only transfer funds into that wallet before activating the contract. That's honestly a good strategy if you're sitting on $100mm+ in cryptocurrency and the transaction fees are negligible (as was the case with the Twitter user). However, when transaction fees are $10/each or more, the average crypto user isn't actually doing anything of the sort. They're clicking the buttons and hoping for the best.