[Joeboy]

> I have a (maybe naive) question: why is the person draining ETH from DAO called "attacker"?

George Soros wasn't (afaik) breaking any law or contract when he drained a billion dollars from the Bank of England in 1992. I think most people in the UK would be OK with describing that as an attack.

[twoodfin]

I like this analogy, but no one tried to reengineer finance or the law to prevent Soros from spending his earnings.

[themusicgod1]

A better analogy is probably Thaksin Shinawatra, where the rules are very much still up in the air, and where depending who has sway in Thailand, he can expect vastly different treatment.

[draw_down]

They can call it whatever they like- he kept his money.

[rsync]

"George Soros wasn't (afaik) breaking any law or contract when he drained a billion dollars from the Bank of England in 1992."

I also like this analogy. I am also reminded of the Hunt Brothers and their (successful) attempt at cornering the silver market which was then thwarted by a rules change by COMEX[1]:

"But on January 7, 1980, in response to the Hunts' accumulation, the exchange rules regarding leverage were changed, when COMEX adopted "Silver Rule 7" placing heavy restrictions on the purchase of commodities on margin. The Hunt brothers had borrowed heavily to finance their purchases, and, as the price began to fall again, dropping over 50% in just four days, they were unable to meet their obligations, causing panic in the markets."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday