It's been over a week since the DAO incident, yet there are still fascinating discussions going on inside the Ethereum community. I've extracted some more valuable fragments from one of [the Reddit threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4pz9as/an_argument_against_burning_the_hacked_coins/) so that you can get a taste of those historical (in my opinion) debates.

I did not make any edits - all of them are original posts. All I did is put them into a more comprehensive sequence, so you can see how the discussion escalates (the timeline is preserved) and then make your own judgment.

PRO - those who support soft and hard-fork
AGAINST - those who are against

https://i.imgsafe.org/136f54ae30.jpg

### PRO

We need those funds to go back into the ecosystem.
We also can't afford to lose users because they're disenfranchised after losing a good chunk of their investment. Not to mention the negative press that would come of not making the DAO token holders whole.

### AGAINST

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of moral hazard ("lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences")? You are advocating a bail-out. This is wrong. It sets a bad precedent. It is also completely contradictory to Ethereum's founding principles of "unstoppable" smart contracts, and the idea that "code is law". TheDAO is a smart contract, which executed as it was written. The end. Orchestrating a "do over" is completely inappropriate.

### PRO

It's not a bailout. It's returning stolen funds.

### AGAINST

Except according to the terms of the contract you deposited to, it wasn't stolen.

### PRO

Not very valid argument. Even every legal system I know do not mechanically read contracts; intent is a big part of it. Fair to say the thief had no claim on those money.

### AGAINST

You realize that you are comparing smart contract with human contracts which are open to interpretation and therefore rely on a court, do you? People who lost their money because they didn't read carefully enough and took part in a mindless hyping of the DAO are now complaining about their own mindlessness. This is like bailing out banks: it would have never been a thing if people had't thrown a shitload of money onto the DAO. It was high-risk but instead of looking at the code, people looked at the money.

### PRO

So smart contract developers are the new lawmakers now? Don't be naive. A bug is still a bug and a thief is still a thief, even in the world of smart contracts.

### AGAINST

The only one being naive is the person who didn't read the code carefully. There is no thief because no theft has been committed. The people who want a bail out use terms like "thief" "stolen" or "attack". The truth is: a hacker saw what thousands of mindless speculators didn't and took advantage.

Actually it's fair if miners decide to fork - they maintain the blockchain, they can try to fork if they feel like it. My issue isn't that people try to fork (let's see if it works out), but the fact that they blame a person who didn't do anything wrong (=followed the binding rules as defined by the contract) and don't mention with ONE word that what brought us here was a mindless hype and careless investors.

Would we be here discussing this issue if the DAO only received 1 M of $ worth? Certainly not. So stop talking about thieves when the real crooks were the people who hyped an experimental project.

### PRO

So just because something is happening on a blockchain you abandon your complete value system? By that logic there is no "wrong" anymore because everything that allowed by code is legit. There are no bugs anymore, a thief is suddenly allowed to steal if he manages to do so and someone placing bets on a assassination market can do so freely.... because that's just the way the smart contracts works?! What a weird logic that is. The blockchain hype has turned your head, i suggest you get back to reality.

### AGAINST

So funny, how people call to "get back to reality" just because they don't want to accept the reality they are in. In legal systems sustained by the interference of third parties (btw. something that we wanted to get rid off) contracts are binding as well. The loophole the hacker used wasn't some minor law that would have been relativized by the constitution, it was IN THE CONSTITUTION. What the hacker did was his full right. It seems illegal to you (and basically everyone who is threatened to lose his money), but that's only because you didn't study the code carefully as the hacker did.

The whole debacle wasn't caused by the hacker, but by the fact that you and thousand others were ignorant and naive. Having in mind that this all is experimental the DAO should have never amassed this amount of money. So reality check: do you seriously believe we would have the debate of forking Ethereum if the DAO has raised $5 M? Seriously? There is NO freakin chance. This is not happening to real issues with the code. This is happening because YOU made it too big to fail.

### PRO

Oh, didn't know we have a new constitution now. I'm not gonna reply to your arguments, i'm just gonna say that i'm highly disgusted and amused at the same time by your view of things. And if a fork leaves people like you behind i'm very happy about it.

### AGAINST

Lol, I guess you overread this part when creating TheDAO tokens

*"By Creating DAO tokens through interaction with The DAO’s smart contract code, you expressly agree to all of the terms and conditions set forth in that code. If you do not understand or do not agree to those terms, you should not Create DAO tokens."*

And btw. I didn't come up with values and whathaveyou. The whole selling point of smart contract is that third parties are not interferring and as I said: there wouldn't have been a REMOTE chance for a fork if TheDAO had been funded by only those who understood what they were signing up to. You, the guys who blew up TheDAO to a ridiculous size, made what could have been a promising experiment a point of faillure for Ethereum.

### PRO

You walk through a ruined city in a post apocalyptic world. Traditional legal system does not apply anymore.
You see an attractive woman feeding chicken to her young boy.

There is no law, so I guess you just rape the woman, kill the kid and eat the chicken? And it's all fine because now law prevented you from doing so.

That's how stupid you argument sounds.

### AGAINST

Yep, it sounds stupid, and it is. You conflate ethics and laws, either because you don't understand it or because you don't want to accept that you aren't the victim in this case. The whole selling point of Ethereum and the DAO was that third parties don't interfere and that the ledger is immutable. The DAO crowd sale EXPLICITELY stated that explanations were null and the code was everything. The fact that so many people now change the narrative is purely based on their personal loss in a project they should have never jumped into because they didn't understand what they were buying and at what price. And with regard to your silly example: yes, in a world without cause your rapist didn't commit a crime, because "crime" in legal terms because there is no legal system. However, it is obvious that you are looking it from a moral perspective, where (greedy) poor users were betrayed by a mean thief who happened to understand what he was signing up to. So, no surprises you come up with such a absurd comparison.

### PRO

First, don't call anybody here greedy please, because DAO or not, we all all greedy.
Second, you are telling me you are giving up your morale and Ethics because a technology allows it, Enough said.

### AGAINST

Ah well, if we all are greedy to the same extent, anyone was greedy. I didn't get involved in the DAO because I wasn't able to understand all consequences of the code. The people who jumped into it overlooked that for two possible reasons: greed or naivity. If you prefer naivity, then so be it. My point isn't namecalling (unlike yours, looking at that ad hominem attempt) but pointing out the fact that those who participated in the hype caused the need for a profound intervention that will diminish my investment, so yes, I am pissed. But more than being pissed by the need for a fork I am pissed by the ignorance of TheDAO investors who act as if they didn't do anything wrong and "the thief" is to blame - gladly anything learned, I guess.

And as I pointed out: this isn't about morale: you just try to switch the narrative by calling a person who understood what he signed up to, a thief. In ANY legal system this individual who took advantage of binding contracts would be easily framed a thief: political authorities would clench their teeth and change the law in order to sustain legality - still you act as if forking would be a moral act like in "the real world". This is anything but rationalizing your unreasonable behaviour.

### PRO

> This is anything but rationalizing your unreasonable behaviour.

The only person trying to rationalize his positions here is you.
A bug that everybody missed, including the best world experts of a new technical field cannot be placed on the same level as some prints missed in a regular contracts.
The ignorance of TheDAO investors in this regards is the same as your own ignorance with any Ethereum project you will be joining in the future.
Unless of course it's a select project for technical expert, but then how do you expect it to be successful?

> you just try to switch the narrative by calling a person who understood what he signed up to, a thief

Can you really say to my face that the guy knew about the bug when he signed for it while the hack occurred just a few days after the weakness was made public and TheDAO had been vulnerable for a month at least?

Who's changing the narrative here?

### AGAINST

Ok mate, why don't we come back to the essential question, that is: do you seriously believe the fork debate would have taken place if the DAO had only 10% of the size? A simple yes or no is highly appreciated.

### PRO

No.

### AGAINST

See, the whole point of my argument is based on the fact that TheDAO was highly experimental and didn't justify a massive investment as it took place. It took place because people jumped onboard who had NO clue AT ALL what they signed up to. "Audited" was apparently enough for them to take part and the fact that Ethereum developers supported the project bumped the price. Everything said "be cautious" but people were eager to see a full success (with correspondent returns). I really don't care how you try to call the person who followed the rules as described in the contract and as described clearly in the explanation as well a thief - do as you like. But stop focusing on this person, because the real reason for the mess we are dealing with are mindless speculators not this person who saw what was possible and took advantage.

In no legal system this person would be framed a thief easily. If you believe otherwise, present examples.

### PRO

You're telling me "if The DAO had less money, hard forking would not be considered".
Basically: "If the situation was not the same, it would be different".
I don't see how it helps us. The situation is what is is, not what you wish it was.

> In no legal system this person would be framed a thief easily. If you believe otherwise, present examples.

I don't know and I won't be looking for examples.
I live in the real world where ethics and pragmatism apply.
Apparently you do not, so I don't see how I could convince you.

### AGAINST

> Basically: "If the situation was not the same, it would be different".

Lol, no it's: if TheDAO wouldn't have been too big to fail, there was no need to fork Ethereum to save TheDAO people's asses.

> I don't know and I won't be looking for examples. I live in the real world where ethics and pragmatism apply.

Actually you advocate a world of arbitrariness which makes me wonder why you went into smart contracts in the first place. Oh and "real" world...tell me more about this real world in which you apparently have all rights to define what is ethically correct and what not for others. Yes, there is really no point of living there fore me.

This attempts of post-rationalizing unreasonable behaviour is hybris at its purest form.

### PRO

Whatever is ethically correct anywhere, is ethically correct in the Ethereum.
Ethics don't stop applying because of technology. It's pretty simple really.

Smart Contracts are supposed to extend and improve how human interact, not create new loopholes and make them acceptable.

This attempts of post-rationalizing unreasonable behaviour is hybris at its purest form.
Good luck selling your crooked model to anybody who has not been involved in Bitcoin.

### AGAINST

> Ethics don't stop applying because of technology. It's pretty simple really.

Funfact: you use "ethics" as if that was an unambiguous term the exact same way you refer to the "real" world. You clearly missed the point of ethics as people use it in public discourse. Also, it is not up to you to define what smart contracts are supposed to be (extend and improve human interact - wow, couldn't have been more esoteric). There is an agreement that you signed up to and now - as you fear you could lose your precious investment - you act as if you were led by higher values when in fact these are just base motives. TheDAO was high risk in the first place, you simply didn't realize and now distract from this fact by pointing at the hacker the same way ignorant people seek responsibility everywhere but in themselves.

There is anything wrong with Ethereum, it works just fine. TheDAO failed and simply because you don't want to admit that your investment was shit in first place, you want others to pay for. Wow, awesome ethics, what's not to love?

### PRO

Whatever. I give up.