Quote from: Efemen on June 20, 2016, 08:52:07 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 20, 2016, 08:36:43 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on June 20, 2016, 08:29:30 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 20, 2016, 08:17:50 PM

The demise of Ethereum is underway now:

Quote from: iamnotback on June 20, 2016, 08:15:08 PM

Quote from: RastMan on June 20, 2016, 08:10:21 PM

It seems 20% of the miners in the ethpool.org do not agree with that. They do not think taking 4% etherum out of circulation is a good idea.
http://ethpool.org/stats/votes

The "attacker" is winning. That was much less than 20% when I looked it a few hours ago.

Nobody in the DAO will ever get their tokens back.

Checkmate.

Disagree, The Attacker has already won. The Eth investor wins if a HF is prevented, because such a scenario would fatally and permanently ruin Ethereum. The only winners of the vote for a HF are DAO token holder who immediately choose to sell their retrieved ETH and get out before Ethereum takes a long and steady decline .

Yes of course, I have also written the "attacker" also wins if Ethereum is able to commit a HF. But I mean I don't even think they will be capable of doing the HF, because the "attacker" controls too much free ETH enabling him to economically influence the hashrate to not accept the HF.

Ethereum is a dead fly on the wall waiting for the final swat.

If there is a soft fork, the attaker's Eth is locked, or useless, how can he use the eth to influence the miners?

The miners he is paying won't be on the soft fork. They will continue mining on original Ethereum because they don't want their free tokens to be stolen from them by the fork. Who ever controls the most hashrate wins (unless the all of the ETH owners decide to only transact on a minority hashrate chain but that has double-spend risks).

Note the reason there might be demand for ETH is many people piling on short. Shorting removes supply from the market.