[DasIch]

What you call an informal contract could also be seen as an incorrect interpretation of a contract.

If you're not willing to call that simply an incorrect interpretation, you end up with two systems - software and people that push the blockchain forward - that interpret contracts differently. You also give precedence to the latter, which will lose the ability to effectively enforce its interpretation the more distributed the system becomes.

Ultimately you have to choose between having one true interpretation of contracts defined by software or being unable to enforce contracts as interpreted by a non-deterministic system.

Choose the latter and not just is there no advantage over real world systems, it's worse at enforcement.

[cpa]

Totally agree. Which interpretation is correct is a decision for the Ethereum community to make (or whoever is in charge, I don't know muck about the governance).

From the article: > The development community is proposing a soft fork, (with NO ROLLBACK; no transactions or blocks will be “reversed”) […] preventing the ether from being withdrawn by the attacker […]. This will later be followed up by a hard fork which will give token holders the ability to recover their ether.

We'll see how the community reacts!