In the totally free (in the sense of liberty), trustless environment of crypto, what you call "attacks" is nothing else but exerting one's liberty in the frame of a strategy to overwhelm others (which is the principal usage of unconstrained liberty). In a full liberty system there's only one right: the right of the strongest (smartest/fittest/fastest/wealthiest...).
So do you think violence is ok? Just because a thug has the liberty to do violence?
How else do you understand freedom, trustlessness, and permissionlessness ? If there are rules, you are not free. Of course, violence is permitted, because *everything* is permitted (permissionlessness). It is the first of freedoms.
If you have 200 BTC worth of assets, and somebody hacks your PC, I bet you would be upset, and would not tolerate that, however that is the "freedom of the hacker to steal" according to your mindset.
The prey is always upset by being eaten by the predator.
I really would like to know what you understand by permissionlessness, and trustlessness, if you need permissions to do things or not (be violent or not), and if you have to trust the judge who will condemn you when you are not following the rules that have been dictated by others (like : be not violent).
So the same way, if some fucker is DDOS-ing some node, or some miner is engaged in double spend, or somebody is filling the network with low transactions, that also causes financial harm to people, in one way or the other.
Again, what don't you understand in trustlessness and permissionlessness, apart from the fact that nobody is to be trusted, and that you don't need any permission to do anything you want ?
So why should we be ok with that? It's no different than physical agression, which we know to be immoral.
If you want a trustless, permissionless system, I don't see how you can impose "moral rules". I'm not saying that you should adhere to trustlessness, and permissionlessness, but these are the founding principles of crypto.
Otherwise, you don't need crypto. You introduce a moral principle that transactions should not be double-spend, and the same centralized authority that sets these rules, and that will judge these rules, is the entity that will verify whether these rules are "moral" to their standards. In other words, the normal world out there.