So, we know how Client-died Anticheats are the worst, but I just got an idea, what if the Anticheat, was in a script, that is needed for the Game to work, meaning that if the Exploiter tries to disable it, the Exploiters Game wouldn’t work anymore?
This would be less exploitable as not everybody would think about that, and only a few would figure out how to disable it without destroying their Gameplay, so would this work?
Please, don’t answer with “It’s exploitable” we all know it is
Theres already anticheats wrapped in coroutines and etc. All the best anticheats are getting bypassed by other ways such as metamethod hooks. It would just make it harder for you rather than for exploiter.
Okay, thanks, I understand now 
Client anti-cheat as we all know can be bypassed, but keep in mind most exploiters are just script kiddies who don’t know how to code at all.
If the anti-exploit is located in the same script as your game code then they’d have to modify that script without breaking anything.
Something as simple as removing the anti-exploit functions could break it if part of the game depends on it for security checks and what not although making gameplay elements rely on your anti-cheat code might make it harder to maintain since you could also much easier break your own code.
Although, I do think that a simple client anti-cheat stops most script kiddies.
Once in a while changing the name of variables might also break existing exploit script injections that depend on a variable having a certain name.