Bitget Hack Exposes Tensions Between Censorship and Permissionless Design
The recent Bitget hack has sparked debate in the crypto industry about censorship and control over stolen funds. After hackers drained hundreds of millions of dollars from the exchange, some of the stolen funds moved across THORChain's cross-chain swap protocol.
Bitget's CEO publicly asked THORChain to refuse service to the attacker's wallets, but the network declined. This decision has led to outrage among Bitget users, who are understandably upset with the situation.
The issue at hand is not whether THORChain is responsible for allowing the stolen funds to pass through its protocol. Rather, it is a question of whether a permissionless network can selectively censor specific accounts, and whether we want one that can.
As the article notes, 'neutral tools get used by everyone, the good and the bad alike.' Criminals use various services and assets, but we don't usually blame the roads or email for facilitating their activities. Similarly, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain all allowed the stolen funds to pass through their systems without any issues.
The problem with THORChain's permissionless design is that it does not have a 'magic filter' for denying specific addresses while allowing others to trade. The only lever available is to freeze the entire network or run it for everyone, which would be a blunt and total measure.
Even if such a button existed, it would not have made a significant difference in this case, as the funds bounced through multiple venues and could have been rerouted quickly.