No need to prove anything, you are wrong. Banks do not declare all transactions are law (IE set in stone) in their mission statement. ETH-F has broken many fundamentals it originally stated as unchangeable and has therefore broken it's contract.

You don't have to like it but it is fact. Denying it won't make it change.

ETH-F should start a new thread anyway and lock the old one just for the fact the original thread clearly proves they did not adhere to their stated goals. Duh

The herping and derping are hilarious!  Are you not entertained?

Bitcoin runs on drama, Ethereum runs on controversy.

What happens when, say, Coinbase GDAX customers demand access to their eTHC?

Does Coinbase pay out on one chain based on their whims?

The safest, least liability creating approach is to treat one of them as a spin-off, where existing shareholders get shares in the new company on a 1 to 1 basis.

The optimally profitable strategy for an exchange is to offer the pair and profit from additional volume/volatility/derivatives.

If you have *ETH on an exchange that supports the hard fork, let them know they may either provide the immutable coins you originally purchased or get ready to talk to thier lawyer(s).

And that argument may cuts both ways, for exchanges that *don't* support the hard fork.  

If someone's eth gets hacked now in the "new" world can he request a hard fork?

So Vitaliks makes the law now?  In what country?  Certainly not in the United States.  Code is not law.  Flaws in code are not law.  Exploiting flaws in code to take something that does not belong to you is not legal.

The point you are missing along with the other people who share your motives is that you cannot take something that does not belong to you without permission.  It doesn't matter how you do it.  You claim the code allowed the thief to do it therefore what he did was legal.  But what about the owners of the ETH that was taken?  If they had no knowledge of the taking or reasonable belief that their ETH was theirs and that no one could take it without their permission AND they claim they did not give said permission, then whoever took it should have given it back.  Once he knew that what he did was not intended he should have offered it back.  By keeping it, not divulging his mistake and not offering to return it he willfully kept something that was not his. Hence, he stole it.

You must be one of those people who when a cashier gives you too much change you keep it, right?  Such an honest person.

So what's next for ethereum? Dao and smart contracts are dead. How will you continue the shitcoin pump?

more news


\Etherindex LLC Files SEC Prospectus for First Ether-Based ETF

http://www.ethereum.net/news/spotlight/etherindex-llc-files-sec-prospectus-for-first-ether-based-etf

So what's next for ethereum? Dao and smart contracts are dead. How will you continue the shitcoin pump?

LOL, my bad!
I got distracted half way through your post and never got to the rest of it!