The MtGox stolen coins didn't blow bitcoin apart either, did they.  When the daily trading volume is several times the bait, a dump might give a dip in the price, but that's all.

Indeed.

That was exactly the value proposition of smart contracts (and of crypto in general): to get rid of humanity, no ?

My point was that the whole value proposition of ethereum (from the beginning) is now dead.  The DAO has shown that "code is law" is a screwed concept, because in a complex contract, there is always the *possibility* of bugs and exploits.  That the Slock-it guys were particularly sloppy is not a reason to think that it cannot happen again.

The whole adventure has shown people that there is in fact no secure way to do smart contracting.  The forking has shown that if it goes wrong, then it is not simple to bail out.  Nobody in his right mind (and certainly not corporations) are going to take the risk to put a lot of money in something that can be exploited, and one cannot guarantee that one will not have written a code that has NO security hole in it.

So the value proposition of ethereum is over.  There won't be big smart contracts any more on it.  In fact, the DAO guys and the hacker did us an enormous favor.  Imagine, in ethereum's wet dreams, that a good part of the corporate world would be running smart contracts on ethereum, and then, say, Apple's funds get pumped into Samsung's :-)  What crisis would that not be ?

This apprentice sorcerer's game stopped in time.

Amen to that !

It didn't survive the 51% attack.  The result of the 51% attack was ETH and that attacked chain still exists.

Dash and XMR both have the same goal.  But where DASH does it with a complicated network of aristocrats (because DASH is based upon bitcoin and coinjoin technology in a certain way), monero uses a totally new cryptographic concept, namely ring signatures (introduced by cryptonote), and as such, decentralizes cryptographically the half-centralized coinjoin technology in DASH.

Anonymity is absolutely needed to obtain fungible money, and to obtain cash-like properties, something bitcoin failed to provide.  Now, in the same way that bitcoin is traceable and has non-fungible coins unless they are mixed, but that until now, that seems to work, DASH has solved this problem but by re-introducing a form of centralisation and gouvernance.  Monero (in fact cryptonote) has solved this issue in a totally decentralized way for the first time, using ring signatures.    In fact, DASH did the best it could but the essential technology was lacking.  Ring signatures were the tech needed to allow for automatic anonymity.  It is still not used enough in crypto, because ring signatures have amazing potential in many domains.  I would think that the step from normal signatures to ring signatures is comparable to the step from symmetric crypto to public key crypto: a whole pan of possibilities opens up.  Where the step from symmetric to public key crypto allowed for matters like trust, ring signatures allow for matters like anonymity.

To give you an idea: if ethereum were build onto cryptonote, then the fork would not even have been possible to consider.  If ethereum were based upon the DASH system, it would have been possible if the masternodes colluded over it.

When ETH has lowered to $2, too :-)

I don't see any significant long term driving force behind ETC/ETH.  It was the promise of complex smart contracts, but that's over now.  What else can ETC/ETH offer ?

A 51% attack only rolls back a chain for so long as one sustains the 51% hash rate.  It is a good trick to do a few temporary double spends.  If you want to kill a chain permanently, you have to sustain the 51% hash rate.  That's quite an investment in vandalism, and moreover, you will probably be recognized (IP address launching all the false blocks).

I really doubt that anyone in his right mind is going to do so.  It is not happening with crypto that have the same PoW function and wildly different hash rates, so why should this happen to ETC ?   

ETC is not a hack coin, or then BTC is also a fifty-fold hack coin, as it didn't fork over major hacks and thefts of bitcoin.

Remember that it wasn't ETH that was hacked, but an application on it, the DAO.  So if an exchange bitcoin wallet gets hacked, that's similar.   If a coin doesn't hard fork over one single theft, it is then a hack/thief coin according to that logic.  Good luck forking over every theft.

In order for a 51% attack to "succeed", you have to sustain it, otherwise the good chain catches up.  What miner is going to put permanent resources in this ?

This.  And as no-one will now trust big smart contracts after the DAO demo, it is doubtful it will go anywhere.  Only use it if you have really a smart contract that you want to use.
This is in fact my general opinion on crypto: don't "invest" in it, use it.  Use cryptocoins to buy stuff with.  

"investing" in crypto is just wanting to syphon seigniorage.

Agree with OP, especially BTC (the one to rule them all) and Monero, the first truly anonymous untraceable cash.

In my opinion, ETH/ETC is fundamentally flawed with Turing completeness but I only realized that later.  Contracts have to come to a conclusion, and Turing completeness does not allow one to verify that automatically.

That success is over, I think, with the DAO demo.  No corporate investor and no big company is ever going to build a smart contract on ETH ever.  ETH complex smart contracts have shown their fundamental problem: the code is the law, and the law is buggy.  Even if one would now write a clean smart contract, the fear of the unknown exploit is now present for ever.

So big contracts, with big money in it, which was the ETH booster, is done with for a very very very long time.

Eh, everybody who knows how block chains work, know about the phenomenon of "replay attacks", that is, valid signatures on the common part of the chain are valid on the two prongs.... OF COURSE.

Yes, in the case of Bitcoin and Satoshi, he wanted to come to the valid function of immutable past, and of the acceptance rules of a currency (the seigniorage mechanism and the transaction mechanism) and of the *irreversibility of a transaction*.   The consensus was "a past everyone agrees on", but this was only a TOOL to obtain the "true past with the true rules".  The idea being that amongst a lot of adversaries, there would not be ever a way to implement a DEVIATING consensus from the truth (that is, the real past, and the original rules) because that advantage would always be only to a minority that would not be able to impose their deviant rules to their advantage.  The deviation from those original rules would be a breakdown of the system (even if there was "consensus"), called a 51% attack.

If there would have been 5000 DAO, then if one had been hacked, nobody would have forked over it, because the "immutability" proposition would be perceived much more profitable than the victims of one single DAO hack.  That's why bitcoin didn't fork, not even over MtGox.

The problem was that ETH was essentially a one-DAO system, so in the end you had DAO holders + ETH holders that saw the sole value of ETH in the DAO, versus the hacker, and the first community could easily form a 51% majority to do a 51% attack, which is what happened.

Other people see "consensus" as in "democracy".  But that is not the solution to the Byzantine Generals's problem.  That is like the generals not agreeing on a time of attack, but agreeing to go and drink a beer, after all.

Mwhahahaha !  These coinbase guys don't know the fundamentals of block chains !

The "replay attack"is NOT AN ATTACK but a feature of forked chains, goddammit !
Calling it an attack is maybe a way to point to a nebulous inexistent "hacker" to turn away the idea that you might have fucked up in a very elementary way !  (or that you are a smart ass pretending, and stealing the ETC, but that's easily verifiable on the block chains: are the first moves identical on both chains (normal behavior = "replay attack") or have there been different transactions on both chains (big scam) ?

In any case, if these guys don't know that a transaction on chain 1 is ALSO a transaction on chain 2 if you don't make it explicitly invalid, then they are so incompetent they shouldn't run anything that has to do with crypto.

No, laws corrupt.  Being able to make laws is like investing in power.  In the same way as you buy new investments with the money you already have to get more money, if you can make laws, you make them such that you obtain more power to make laws.  This is the business of the state: to make laws that give them more power to make laws.   In the end, you make laws about everything that has it your way.

If ETC is criminal because it didn't fork over 1 (one) theft, is ETH going to become also a criminal coin when it will not fork over the next theft, or will it fork over the next theft ?  Or will there be no theft any more, and was this the only, sole, single theft that ever will happen on the ETH chain ?

What's your vision on that ?  Should BTC have forked over the 50 or more spectacular thefts it has known or not and is it a criminals' coin or not ?

You think there will be another DAO adventure ?  Really ?