You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bitfinex claiming the compromise was entirely on their end
If it doesn't cover Bitgo signing a transaction they obviously shouldn't have signed that results in a loss of funds, what does it cover? (That's a serious question. Give me an example of something it would cover.)
I don't understand the whole picture, but as I see BitGo haven't provided any extra security. They automaticly signed every transaction what bitfinex signed.
But it is just my first impression.
If it wasn't BItgo's responsibility to avoid signing obvious theft transactions, in what way did either Bitgo or this scheme provide any security at all above just storing tens of millions of dollars in a hotwallet? (Which I hope neither Bitgo nor Bitfinex would have agreed to.)
And, again, if their insurance didn't cover them signing a transaction they shouldn't have signed that caused a less, what would it cover? Since it was a 2-of-3 scheme, them signing a transaction could not possibly cause a loss unless Bitfinex also signed it.
Are you arguing the insurance covered no losses? If not, give a scenario where there is a loss the insurance would cover.
I am really not sure what to think about the whole thing.
I don't know details about the hack or the services Bitgo provided to Bitfinex. Also I am not a security expert.
I just found it really strange that it could happened without compromising bitgo's system. Let's wait for all of the info and we will see what happened.
I just reread all the facts, yes it was Bitgos responsibility to avoid to sign such a transactions. First I thought they used the backup keys to sign the transactions. So the insurance should cover it. After that I just didn't understand how Bitgo could allow those transactions.
I really want to know more about the whole story, because there are a lot of open questions.