we should trustlessly vote on a few predetermined scenarios, with a minimum amount of voters required for the vote to stand. If not enough voters participate we will have to have PhantomPhreak and Xnova talk with us on the forum and come to a decision based on whats best for the majority, and which plan of action does the least damage to the notoriety and fairness of the protocol. We have to really think longterm here guys. For instance if you gain back 100% and people lose faith then your 100% might not be worth much, but if you gain back 60% and the rep stays the same.. well.. ? then you just might have a pot of gold, like we all will inevitably have anyways.
There's no decision to be made. If you change the protocol after-the-fact, you lose all credibility. It's the same discussion the bitcoin community recently had about the DPR coins. It would be advantageous to fork out all the captured DPR/FBI coins...but the damage to the protocol would be HUGE.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm definitely rethinking my assessment of the "white hat" hacker here. It now sounds less like a white hat and more like a really conflicted grey hat. A benevolent hacker would have withdrawn and redeposited the 35k XCP, then done a couple of small transactions to prove it was possible, then notified Busoni. A white hat would NOT have executed 80 BTC worth of trades and completely disrupted the exchange, if not the entire XCP marketplace.
FACT: Busoni is going to spend days, maybe weeks, sorting through the result of this debacle and trying to figure out how to disperse the "damage."
I call on all the community members who pledged bounties to the "white hat" hacker to rescind those pledges, and instead forward any donations to Busoni, to help him resolve the damage that this hacker caused to Poloniex, and possibly to the entire ecosystem.