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/votesLooking 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.
Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864Especially 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!
.
