Thread by @herrold

One of the problem of the exploit authoring community, is that they are afraid of losing anonymity, and being sued via pre-emptive 'law-fare' by a mega-corp rather than paid, even when engaged in what is presently called: Responsible Disclosure

This misses the whole point of lawyers and attorney-client confidences

An attorney cannot seek out nor counsel how to undertake non-legal actions, but they are ** designed ** to represent the unpopular and the potentially culpable in defense against formal criminal prosecution

With the emergence of an untamperable blockchain, engaging an attorney or three for building an 'onion router' type of cutout system is perfectly attainable, both for communication, and for trusted third party settlements, much like the Letters of Credit proposals seen

The former need for ad hoc trust relationships with inherently non-trustable counterparties, may be 'solved' via traditional, well-recognized, and basic legally enforceable models

The Blockchain adds new capabilities to the Game Theory 'trusted negotiation' quiver

This by no means rules out the need for functionally perfect execution, of the steps, via a state-machine or such to prevent inadvertent mistakes, but this is a solved problem

The seminar I attended Tuesday, and the curious bankers who lingered to discuss blockchains ...

... turn out to be time well spent