Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cracker_jacks 1883 days ago
> no attacks are possible

I think this just shifts the responsibility and point of attack onto the owner (which is true for all decentralized crypto). An attack is still possible and worse yet, it is completely irreversible.

That said, the option of taking personal custody and responsibility is important and I think it should always be an option.
2 comments
mrnobody_67 1883 days ago
Honeypot is much smaller.

Any centralized source of data is very attractive and worth spending a lot of time & effort on and inevitable gets hacked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_data_breaches

link
baby 1883 days ago
> I think this just shifts the responsibility and point of attack onto the owner

The owner is always a target, it doesn't change that, it just removes a bunch of single points of failure and middle men.

> An attack is still possible and worse yet, it is completely irreversible

Attacks are always possible, but depending on your threat model you do end up eliminating a number of them. As I said, with a naive implementation you make an attack irreversible, but it's not impossible to imagine an optional, committee base KYC-based account recovery mechanism.

link