The ONLY solution to the ETH/DAO conundrum..

[spartacusrex]

Well.. 24 hrs sure is a long time in crypto land.

As Ethereum worries about the 'piddly' 50 mil 'contractually' obtained from the DAO 'Sloppy' Contract (not sure you could call it Smart).. the ETH market cap has dropped 100's of millions of dollars.

This is NOT because ETH is at fault, or has been hacked, or has behaved abnormally.

But the ridiculous response from the ETH Elite that they will now reverse / fork / magic-away the results of a contract run on their network.

..

There is only one response from the ETH Elite that can save Ethereum.

Stay well away.

This is not your fight. ETH can and will be fine. If it had been a bug in the EVM, fork-away. It wasn't, and all you have done with your meddling is destroy any trust anyone had, in running a trust-less system.

What next ? When will you next decide to fork-away the unwanted.. When will a government decide to force you to fork.. How can you even speak in this way about a decentralised system without  admitting that the system is NOT decentralised ?

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

..

'.. You've already done enough damage... This mission is OVER.. This mission IS OVER!! ..   .. ( Slams table hard with hand ) .. '

Please, walk away. It's that simple.

..

And as for the DAO.. write better code next time.

[1714992604]

1714992604

[1714992604]

1714992604

[1714992604]

1714992604

[Anus]

yep true story
if they can fork this shit...then goverment can let them fork things also

[leopard2]

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

Dont be childish.

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/

Now about this DAO thing, i don`t know much about it but why they take it down I cannot comprehend.

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

[leopard2]

yep true story
if they can fork this shit...then goverment can let them fork things also

no. BTC was forked before because the community agreed. The community would not agree to do this for a government. 

[iamnotback]

This is not your fight. ETH can and will be fine. If it had been a bug in the EVM, fork-away. It wasn't, and all you have done with your meddling is destroy any trust anyone had, in running a trust-less system.

If Vitalik wasn't also a Curator and thus implied promoter of the DAO, then I'd agree with you 100%[1]. Let Tual et al, take any legal liability. But I am thinking maybe Vitalik is legally in deep shit also:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.0

But maybe you are correct and the lawyers will advise the Ethereum Foundation to do nothing, so as to not admit they are the ones "securing" the investments of the users so they don't fall under purview of the securities law. But I still think they are going to damned because they didn't make adequate disclosures.

Nobody from their camp warned anything while the DAO was accumulating $168m. I and others were warning that this huge pot of egold ripe for losses (either exchange value losses or outright technological losses) and not making proper disclosure was going to end up a legal clusterfuck. So now here we are.

Bitcoin didn't have a key personality as a promoter.


[1] But that would mean I also agree the majority can do a 51% attack and change the protocol.

[Minecache]

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

Dont be childish.

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/

Now about this DAO thing, i don`t know much about it but why they take it down I cannot comprehend.

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Well said. Happened before to BTC and its yet to happen to ETH as ETH itself has not been hacked. ETH haters need to get over themselves and their disgusting irrational diatribes.

[iamnotback]

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

Agreed.

My father specializes in contract law, graduated top of his class at L.S.U. and was former West Coast Division Attorney for Exxon.

I once was fretting over the fine print of a contract for a $205,000 license I sold for CoolPage in 2001, and he advised to not kill the contract negotiations because he said the court would not enforce a one-sided contract.

So contract law interprets what is the intent, not just what is written in the contract.

Vitalik and Tual need to lawyer up if they haven't already done so.

[Dâniel Fraga]

What is interesting about all this is that all the outcomes will harm Ether:

1) no fork: attacker gets all these Ethers and he can manipulate the price as he wants.

2) with a fork: attacker doesn't get Ether, but confidence on Ethereum drops and the price goes down

And the "economic" solution (through economic incentives):

3) miners accept the attacker's proposal of one million Ether to reject the soft fork:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/miners-to-be-offered-one-million-ether-claims-daos-alleged-attacker-in-ccn-interview/

"Just speculating (because only 1 million to miners is committed), but it makes sense to have a carrot and a stick. Carrot: return some of the eth to the DAO to make righteous people happy. Stick: return some of the eth to miners if they don’t fork to give monetary incentive to not fork. So… the impact and amounts will be a lot smaller than current estimations."

But even if miners accept the attacker's proposal, there's a risk of the price going down, so the miners will be harmed (unless they're already shorting Ether to gain when the price drops).

[Auponef]

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

Agreed.

My father specializes in contract law, graduated top of his class at L.S.U. and was former West Coast Division Attorney for Exxon.

I once was fretting over the fine print of a contract for a $205,000 license I sold for CoolPage in 2001, and he advised to not kill the contract negotiations because he said the court would not enforce a one-sided contract.

So contract law interprets what is the intent, not just what is written in the contract.

Do you mean the intent of the DAO is not to enrich somebody by $50 million by exploiting a hole in the coding?

[iamnotback]

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

Agreed.

My father specializes in contract law, graduated top of his class at L.S.U. and was former West Coast Division Attorney for Exxon.

I once was fretting over the fine print of a contract for a $205,000 license I sold for CoolPage in 2001, and he advised to not kill the contract negotiations because he said the court would not enforce a one-sided contract.

So contract law interprets what is the intent, not just what is written in the contract.

Do you mean the intent of the DAO is not to enrich somebody by $50 million by exploiting a hole in the coding?

No. leopard2 and I mean that the intent of the DAO contract is roughly not to allow 1 user take all the value out without consensus voting.

And contract law will likely enforce rule for that intent, regardless of an weakness in the code which prevents enforcing that intent.

Edit: but note it is not clear whether the law could enforce it.

[baomuydtab34261]

i am worried about that the law of the country could let them fork EHT also? if not, The ETH and Dao will be blowing.

[Foxpup]

Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal.

Consent just means "agreement". The creators of the DAO (rather stupidly) agreed that "code is law", and the attackers agreed with the code. It's generally assumed in contract law that anyone agreeing to a contract understands it completely, including any loopholes. Abusing a loophole in a contract is perfectly legal and can be legally enforced if it works against the person who wrote the contract (it's his fault, after all). A person who discovers that a contract allows them to collect free money can't be blamed for agreeing to it; it's the responsibility of the contract's author to ensure the terms of the contract can't be turned against him.

[BitcoinNational]

Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal.

Consent just means "agreement". The creators of the DAO (rather stupidly) agreed that "code is law", and the attackers agreed with the code. It's generally assumed in contract law that anyone agreeing to a contract understands it completely, including any loopholes. Abusing a loophole in a contract is perfectly legal and can be legally enforced if it works against the person who wrote the contract (it's his fault, after all). A person who discovers that a contract allows them to collect free money can't be blamed for agreeing to it; it's the responsibility of the contract's author to ensure the terms of the contract can't be turned against him.

math is the LAW
suck it!

[think i agree with OP]

[benthach]

Well.. 24 hrs sure is a long time in crypto land.

As Ethereum worries about the 'piddly' 50 mil 'contractually' obtained from the DAO 'Sloppy' Contract (not sure you could call it Smart).. the ETH market cap has dropped 100's of millions of dollars.

This is NOT because ETH is at fault, or has been hacked, or has behaved abnormally.

But the ridiculous response from the ETH Elite that they will now reverse / fork / magic-away the results of a contract run on their network.

..

There is only one response from the ETH Elite that can save Ethereum.

Stay well away.

This is not your fight. ETH can and will be fine. If it had been a bug in the EVM, fork-away. It wasn't, and all you have done with your meddling is destroy any trust anyone had, in running a trust-less system.

What next ? When will you next decide to fork-away the unwanted.. When will a government decide to force you to fork.. How can you even speak in this way about a decentralised system without  admitting that the system is NOT decentralised ?

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

..

'.. You've already done enough damage... This mission is OVER.. This mission IS OVER!! ..   .. ( Slams table hard with hand ) .. '

Please, walk away. It's that simple.

..

And as for the DAO.. write better code next time.

eth is bug-ridden and stephan tual wrote this smart contract for eth, then we have many ways, many paths of unseen scalability(turing) network which is promised to come by 2017 and 2018. this vaporware fake pump scam is no more than just a joke

[coinyard]

yep true story
if they can fork this shit...then goverment can let them fork things also

When the governments want to fork it, I will vote against as a miner. I will vote for any fork according to my decision.

[helloeverybody]

The way i see it is eth is over either way. A fork is going to be bad for all the reasons stated but if you stand back and leave things then theres no doubt that all the newly aquired eth that will be released in 26 days or whatever it is will definitly be getting dumped, If you think the price is low now its nothing compared to what it will be like after a few million more eth gets dumped.

i agree its not eths fault but if you fly with the crows you get shot with the crows.

[Slark]

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Even when you 'fix' the code and create DAO 2.0 it is not enough. People will remember this fail forever. There is something which can't be fixed with rewritten code - people's trust.

And how exactly BTC was 'hacked'? I don't recall anything like that in the past. And certainly no coins were stolen during that 'attack'.

[helloeverybody]

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Even when you 'fix' the code and create DAO 2.0 it is not enough. People will remember this fail forever. There is something which can't be fixed with rewritten code - people's trust.

And how exactly BTC was 'hacked'? I don't recall anything like that in the past. And certainly no coins were stolen during that 'attack'.

A lot of people keep bringing up that bitcoin was hacked but its irrelevant . Bitcoin had an issue in 2010 where someone managed to create so many billions of bitcoins but this was back when bitcoin was in its infancy with a market cap of only 200k, The dao and ethereums market cap is much larger and investers face a massive loss which was not the case with bitcoin. Also developers were aware of this recent exploit with the dao yet never fixed it.

[anthonydar]

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Even when you 'fix' the code and create DAO 2.0 it is not enough. People will remember this fail forever. There is something which can't be fixed with rewritten code - people's trust.

And how exactly BTC was 'hacked'? I don't recall anything like that in the past. And certainly no coins were stolen during that 'attack'.

If this crisis is dealt properly, people will have more confidence in the Etheruem. It needs the whole community support.

[RussianMiner]

If hackers dump these coins price will be 50 cent

NXT died because of this!

[john2231]

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Even when you 'fix' the code and create DAO 2.0 it is not enough. People will remember this fail forever. There is something which can't be fixed with rewritten code - people's trust.

And how exactly BTC was 'hacked'? I don't recall anything like that in the past. And certainly no coins were stolen during that 'attack'.

If this crisis is dealt properly, people will have more confidence in the Etheruem. It needs the whole community support.

Support? Ethereum is already dead and i think it will not recover all their loses.. because of DAO. their name is already destroyed in people and more invsetors are converting back into bitcoin or other altcoin.. they are not luck of trust.. making a new altcoin and building a new trust and the same devs.. its impossible that you can get trust again.. because its already destroy trust. new promises is not a good solution..

[alyssa85]

What is interesting about all this is that all the outcomes will harm Ether:

1) no fork: attacker gets all these Ethers and he can manipulate the price as he wants.

2) with a fork: attacker doesn't get Ether, but confidence on Ethereum drops and the price goes down

And the "economic" solution (through economic incentives):

3) miners accept the attacker's proposal of one million Ether to reject the soft fork:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/miners-to-be-offered-one-million-ether-claims-daos-alleged-attacker-in-ccn-interview/

"Just speculating (because only 1 million to miners is committed), but it makes sense to have a carrot and a stick. Carrot: return some of the eth to the DAO to make righteous people happy. Stick: return some of the eth to miners if they don’t fork to give monetary incentive to not fork. So… the impact and amounts will be a lot smaller than current estimations."

But even if miners accept the attacker's proposal, there's a risk of the price going down, so the miners will be harmed (unless they're already shorting Ether to gain when the price drops).

If it is a) it's only 3% of the coins. MtGox was about that and bitcoin took it on the chin, the price dived to be sure, but that's how it goes. 97% are in other hands.

[iamnotback]

So the miners having 51% mining power can decide the fork or any code any way. There is no moral hazard. There is no argument at all. You just need to convince the majority of the miners.

Somebody here actually understands PoW = miners are a "decentralized authority".

Ethereum miners have started voting in some pools on the "soft fork"...
The "soft fork" simply freezes all ETH transfers from the DAO contract (rendering the current "attacks" unprofitable)...
And there are roughly another 25 days left for miners to simply set a flag that locks up the DAO.

Ethpool is voting 99.4% in favor of a "soft fork" here:

http://ethpool.org/stats/votes

Looking at these numbers...
It's very likely miners will subsequently vote in a "hard fork" that will destroy the DAO... and return all ETH to investors.

Ethereum will not suffer from the same paralysis Bitcoin did post-Gox... and still does.

All the FUD you hear about "crypto purity" is from Bitcoin Maximalist Trolls...
Miners acting as a "decentralized authority" on ANY issue is at the heart of PoW.

Did they really act without political control driving their choice?

Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864

Especially listen at 1:06:15! And listen at 1:11:15 where the attorney says Vitalik (et al) is creating dangerous legal liability for himself (themselves) by being the judge!

The likely party to be sued are those who can be identified and have a pot of money.

Vitalik just propose a change to the Etheruem protocol. It is the miners who will be responsible for the restoring the money from the theft.

The court may not agree that Vitalik has no political power. Considering how much all the mETH supporters prays at his feet, I'd say it is likely the court will find that Vitalik and his accomplices are significantly in control of the enterprise. But that is just my opinion as an observer. What do others think?

And remember that the attorney pointed out that each of the 1000s of plaintiffs can sue in any one of the 1000s of jurisdictions. Someone can find a favorable judge some where!!!

This is what I specifically warned about over the past months. I can even quote where I said that jurisdiction shopping would be a PITA because one would have to defend themselves against an unbounded number of threats.

As the attorney Pamela points out, this issue could have been significantly mitigated if their attorneys had advised them to add an arbitration clause to the TOS and also had more sobering disclosures on their TOS so that plaintiffs couldn't just choose willynilly to make any sort of claim of injury in any jurisdiction.

Who set up the legal structure for Ethereum et al?  They apparently suck!

What are you doing to crypto-currency? Who will support Ethereum as it becomes the 666 coin? The attorney explains that they open the ecosystem to subpoena power by doing this. And you support the moral hazard of rewarding n00bs for not doing due diligence instead of letting them suffer a 30% haircut.

Effectively MIT's 666 ChainAnchor proposal which can be used for enforcing KYC, is a blacklist coming to crypto-currency thanks to Ethereum and The DAO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=2627  <--- a real attorney's explanation

Thanks Vitalik for enslaving us!

AnonyMint predicted this in 2013, Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch.

[anthonydar]

So the miners having 51% mining power can decide the fork or any code any way. There is no moral hazard. There is no argument at all. You just need to convince the majority of the miners.

Somebody here actually understands PoW = miners are a "decentralized authority".

Ethereum miners have started voting in some pools on the "soft fork"...
The "soft fork" simply freezes all ETH transfers from the DAO contract (rendering the current "attacks" unprofitable)...
And there are roughly another 25 days left for miners to simply set a flag that locks up the DAO.

Ethpool is voting 99.4% in favor of a "soft fork" here:

http://ethpool.org/stats/votes

Looking at these numbers...
It's very likely miners will subsequently vote in a "hard fork" that will destroy the DAO... and return all ETH to investors.

Ethereum will not suffer from the same paralysis Bitcoin did post-Gox... and still does.

All the FUD you hear about "crypto purity" is from Bitcoin Maximalist Trolls...
Miners acting as a "decentralized authority" on ANY issue is at the heart of PoW.

Did they really act without political control driving their choice?

Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864

Especially listen at 1:06:15! And listen at 1:11:15 where the attorney says Vitalik (et al) is creating dangerous legal liability for himself (themselves) by being the judge!

The likely party to be sued are those who can be identified and have a pot of money.

Vitalik just propose a change to the Etheruem protocol. It is the miners who will be responsible for the restoring the money from the theft.

The court may not agree that Vitalik has no political power. Considering how much all the mETH supporters prays at his feet, I'd say it is likely the court will find that Vitalik and his accomplices are significantly in control of the enterprise. But that is just my opinion as an observer. What do others think?

And remember that the attorney pointed out that each of the 1000s of plaintiffs can sue in any one of the 1000s of jurisdictions. Someone can find a favorable judge some where!!!

This is what I specifically warned about over the past months. I can even quote where I said that jurisdiction shopping would be a PITA because one would have to defend themselves against an unbounded number of threats.

As the attorney Pamela points out, this issue could have been significantly mitigated if their attorneys had advised them to add an arbitration clause to the TOS and also had more sobering disclosures on their TOS so that plaintiffs couldn't just choose willynilly to make any sort of claim of injury in any jurisdiction.

Who set up the legal structure for Ethereum et al?  They apparently suck!

What are you doing to crypto-currency? Who will support Ethereum as it becomes the 666 coin? The attorney explains that they open the ecosystem to subpoena power by doing this. And you support the moral hazard of rewarding n00bs for not doing due diligence instead of letting them suffer a 30% haircut.

Effectively MIT's 666 ChainAnchor proposal which can be used for enforcing KYC, is a blacklist coming to crypto-currency thanks to Ethereum and The DAO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=2627  <--- a real attorney's explanation

Thanks Vitalik for enslaving us!

AnonyMint predicted this in 2013, Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch.

If the miners decide to freeze the funds or even return the stolen funds to the owners of the DAO holers, will any courts chasing the miners world wide?

[coinyard]

So the miners having 51% mining power can decide the fork or any code any way. There is no moral hazard. There is no argument at all. You just need to convince the majority of the miners.

Somebody here actually understands PoW = miners are a "decentralized authority".

Ethereum miners have started voting in some pools on the "soft fork"...
The "soft fork" simply freezes all ETH transfers from the DAO contract (rendering the current "attacks" unprofitable)...
And there are roughly another 25 days left for miners to simply set a flag that locks up the DAO.

Ethpool is voting 99.4% in favor of a "soft fork" here:

http://ethpool.org/stats/votes

Looking at these numbers...
It's very likely miners will subsequently vote in a "hard fork" that will destroy the DAO... and return all ETH to investors.

Ethereum will not suffer from the same paralysis Bitcoin did post-Gox... and still does.

All the FUD you hear about "crypto purity" is from Bitcoin Maximalist Trolls...
Miners acting as a "decentralized authority" on ANY issue is at the heart of PoW.

Did they really act without political control driving their choice?

Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864

Especially listen at 1:06:15! And listen at 1:11:15 where the attorney says Vitalik (et al) is creating dangerous legal liability for himself (themselves) by being the judge!

The likely party to be sued are those who can be identified and have a pot of money.

Vitalik just propose a change to the Etheruem protocol. It is the miners who will be responsible for the restoring the money from the theft.

The court may not agree that Vitalik has no political power. Considering how much all the mETH supporters prays at his feet, I'd say it is likely the court will find that Vitalik and his accomplices are significantly in control of the enterprise. But that is just my opinion as an observer. What do others think?

And remember that the attorney pointed out that each of the 1000s of plaintiffs can sue in any one of the 1000s of jurisdictions. Someone can find a favorable judge some where!!!

This is what I specifically warned about over the past months. I can even quote where I said that jurisdiction shopping would be a PITA because one would have to defend themselves against an unbounded number of threats.

As the attorney Pamela points out, this issue could have been significantly mitigated if their attorneys had advised them to add an arbitration clause to the TOS and also had more sobering disclosures on their TOS so that plaintiffs couldn't just choose willynilly to make any sort of claim of injury in any jurisdiction.

Who set up the legal structure for Ethereum et al?  They apparently suck!

What are you doing to crypto-currency? Who will support Ethereum as it becomes the 666 coin? The attorney explains that they open the ecosystem to subpoena power by doing this. And you support the moral hazard of rewarding n00bs for not doing due diligence instead of letting them suffer a 30% haircut.

Effectively MIT's 666 ChainAnchor proposal which can be used for enforcing KYC, is a blacklist coming to crypto-currency thanks to Ethereum and The DAO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=2627  <--- a real attorney's explanation

Thanks Vitalik for enslaving us!

AnonyMint predicted this in 2013, Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch.

If the miners decide to freeze the funds or even return the stolen funds to the owners of the DAO holers, will any courts chasing the miners world wide?

It could the first time in history that the miners can show their strength and their decision can be crucial.

[Auponef]

I have voted for the soft fork, I will vote for the hard fork if the thief does not return the stolen funds and compensate.

[yelllowsin]

I have voted for the soft fork, I will vote for the hard fork if the thief does not return the stolen funds and compensate.

Yep, me too. Voted for soft fork and hard fork as the funds were stolen.

[anthonydar]

I have voted for the soft fork, I will vote for the hard fork if the thief does not return the stolen funds and compensate.

Yep, me too. Voted for soft fork and hard fork as the funds were stolen.

I have done the same. I have my own conciounce. I think it is the stolen funds, so it has to be return to the owner.

[Auponef]

I have voted for the soft fork, I will vote for the hard fork if the thief does not return the stolen funds and compensate.

Yep, me too. Voted for soft fork and hard fork as the funds were stolen.

I have done the same. I have my own conciounce. I think it is the stolen funds, so it has to be return to the owner.

It seems most of the miners agree with you. There is very small chance for the hacker to get hold of the coins.

[antiscam2000]

If hackers dump these coins price will be 50 cent

NXT died because of this!

There is enough alts out there that had 5% or 10% of supply stolen and dumped and survived it. ETH community is a bunch of betamale pussies that are scared of volatility.

@OP
Why cry like being hurt? Just sell and move on. Nobody sheds a tear over a shitcoin, really.

[anthonydar]

If hackers dump these coins price will be 50 cent

NXT died because of this!

There is enough alts out there that had 5% or 10% of supply stolen and dumped and survived it. ETH community is a bunch of betamale pussies that are scared of volatility.

@OP
Why cry like being hurt? Just sell and move on. Nobody sheds a tear over a shitcoin, really.

It depends on how much the 10% of the stolen funds worth. If that is over $60 million, somebody will be worried.