But helping them getting their money back isnt a bailout so if you didnt know this ill forgive you. Personally, i care more about not allowing a thief go away with stolen money rather than helping people getting their money back. But if they get the money back and the thief is not allowed to get away then its a double win.
Why do people keep calling it a thief? "The Attacker" simply followed the "smart" contract. In fact, he was the
only person who actually understood the contract! And the contract itself states that the contract's code is binding, there is no other interpretation possible.
A hard fork on the other hand, that is actually theft. Which is why I am very curious to see a lawsuit about this.