The meaning of the word "safe" seems to vary from person to person. The ETH and contract devs think safe means having a static PL to capture contracts.
But in reality it is safe as in, whoever exploited the vulnerability now has a "safe" source of income in a few weeks.
Perhaps it is a lesson better learnt now than later when the stakes are even higher.
> whoever exploited the vulnerability now has a "safe" source of income in a few weeks.
Well, that would be safe (in the sense that you got money according to the contracts in the ETH network), but the problem is that the developers are trying to take this money away from the exploiter! I.e. they're trying to undo whatever action was enforced by a cristalized contract everybody agreed upon!
Well, she doesn't, they will block the attacker outright by a centralized decree. What's the better proof that decentralized solutions work than blacklisting accounts and making ad-hoc forks for each attack.
The DAO code that the stolen ETH is held in doesn't allow spending for 27 days, by which time the Ethereum developers hope to have 51% of node power on the fork that blocks transactions involving this address.
The meaning of the word "safe" seems to vary from person to person. The ETH and contract devs think safe means having a static PL to capture contracts.
But in reality it is safe as in, whoever exploited the vulnerability now has a "safe" source of income in a few weeks.
Perhaps it is a lesson better learnt now than later when the stakes are even higher.