[3np]

To expand:

The decision-making and communities of Ethereum (this goes both for the clients, the blockchain, the foundation and the larger community) looks completely different today compared to 2015. There has been a lot of lessons learnt, debate and churn since.

If they same thing happened today, it'd play out completely differently.

See the Parity Multisig hack, for one.

Finally, it's a stretch to call the dao hack "arbitrage trade".

[SilasX]

>Finally, it's a stretch to call the dao hack "arbitrage trade".

It is absolutely not. It is exactly the same from the value judgments of the ETH project, specifically "Code is Law". The DAO specifically went as far as endorsing that the software execution takes precedence over the reading of the English functionality spec.

The ETH system, but the core values of ETH, should do exactly what your arb contract specifies, and exactly what the DAO contracts specify, even and especially if that's not what the writer originally intended. To selectively reneg on that principle would be wrong for the same reason as doing it on an arb contract.

[3np]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrage

> the simultaneous purchase and sale of the same securities, commodities, or foreign exchange in different markets to profit from unequal prices.

What’s being bought and sold? Who’s the counterparty?

I’m not arguing right and wrong, just that you can’t call any permissionless extraction of value from a contract “arbitrage trade”.

And again, incorrectly assuming that 1) it somehow sets a precedent 2) the people making the decision then are the same that would be making it today 3) the overlapping people would make the same decision today as then 4) the EF and core devs have a strong authority on these matters

There’s always ETC if you want to stay on the timeline where the DAO hack executed as specified without being overridden. No one forced anyone to fork.