Point 3 in the "plausible scenario" seems obviously bogus to me. If they knew about transaction malleability, they could have addressed it easily the same way the standard client does it, rather than intentionally leaving a gaping hole just so they could have an excuse for insolvency.
No, the idea is they didn't actually leave a gaping hole - they just pretended they did so they could use it as an excuse, without actually suffering any [additional] loss.
Comments
Point 3 in the "plausible scenario" seems obviously bogus to me. If they knew about transaction malleability, they could have addressed it easily the same way the standard client does it, rather than intentionally leaving a gaping hole just so they could have an excuse for insolvency.
No, the idea is they didn't actually leave a gaping hole - they just pretended they did so they could use it as an excuse, without actually suffering any [additional] loss.