The R&D thread is locked per a pre approved list, but since it is open to the community just wanted to ask some minor questions.
Given the historical issues with exchanges/miners with large wallets, was there any attempt to create a similar sandblast wallet to help reduce these friction points moving forward? (e.g. create a fake wallet for load testing and test moving forward)
It seems like it was very well known that this was part of the fee mechanism and lasted for a while, so it also seems that this attack could have been used to not only benefit large wallet loads for an exchange, but also SDK wallets?
Essentially, I’m asking outside of the reactive phase(zip317) what proactive steps were taken besides just bounding actions in a wallet? Also what tests are now implemented and monitored to ensure attacks similar don’t happen again?