4 ms·
Or you could be a government with billions staked in your jurisdiction, and bureaucratic indifference to the outcome of your regulatory actions.
by TakeBlaster16 4y ago
Or you could be a government with billions staked in your jurisdiction, and bureaucratic indifference to the outcome of your regulatory actions.
- dane-pgp 4y agoA government spending billions of taxpayer dollars on an attack which can be reversed in an afternoon with a new software update is more likely to be an existential threat to that government than to Ethereum. The sort of software update I'm imagining is one which just zeroes the holdings of the government wallet(s), and continues the chain from just before they launched their attack.
- TakeBlaster16 4y agoI think you lost the context of the thread. I'm not suggesting they will spend billions on crypto. I'm suggesting they will use their regulatory teeth to compel USA companies that have already staked billions worth of their customers' ETH to comply with the sanctions on Tornado Cash addresses, consequences/slashing be damned. OFAC has lawyers on payroll, so this would literally be free for them.
- dane-pgp 4y ago> I'm suggesting they will use their regulatory teeth to compel USA companies... If there's one group that the government care more about the finances of than taxpayers, it's companies. Destroying the wealth of these companies in their jurisdiction is an attack that can only be performed once, and provides no long term benefit, except for people outside their jurisdiction.