At the very least (in both instances) provide Livecoin with some kind of bug bounty reward.
okay, but bug bounties are usually pretty tiny. and POW coin developers don't have huge slush funds like ICOs to throw money at things.
The difference between zero and 1 confirmations is almost infinite. Anybody can create a doublespend with zero confirmations yet very, very few people can pull it off with 1 confirmation. A transaction is not at all secure without at least a single confirmation.
nobody said it was. the implication was that zero conf transactions are insecure in bitcoin. so was accepting monacoin deposits---and allowing those depositors to immediately withdrawal---with only a few confirmations.
What they _could_ have done is had some sort of warning system to notify them that 5-6 blocks were created in 1 minute instead of the usual 1.5 minute block time, then either frozen withdrawals at that time or else upped the confirmations required for a deposit.
that's livecoin's job. they had no internal checks for network abnormalities. coin developers can address exploits after they are found, but they can't bail livecoin out before the fact.
It wasn't until a week later that the Monacoin developer came up with the suggestion of requiring 100 confirmations for a deposit. Both Livecoin and Bittrex had ceased deposits and withdrawals well before then.
what's your point?