Thanks for bringing this up again Epsylon3.  Yeah these events were disturbing while I watched them go down, and picked through the history, but I don't see anything that made me think "hacked block chains".  

Allow me to clarify the events of several months ago.

What appears to have happened (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that at least two separate miners had very large hash capability, enough to perform effectively a 51% attack on the network.  While one was doing "drive-by-hashing", putting a large amount of work into the network and then leaving (to mine another coin?) after the difficulty went up, another was combating this actor by remining the blocks which took place during the low difficulty and building up a longer chain which eventually removed the rewards of the first attacker.  

According to this theory, the second of these players didn't mean any harm to you but you were caught in the crossfire and blocks that your pool mined were then orphaned when he/she presented the network with a much longer chain.  In some recognition of this the second attacker sent you some of the newly issued LOGs as "rain".  

Clients seeing a much longer chain do what they are supposed to do - they accept the chain which presents the most work.  This is basic blockchain dynamics and although it can be annoying and presents issues I don' t think there is a separate hack or vulnerability at play here.  If there is evidence of one, I would certainly be interested to hear it.  

In any case, the hashpower of the network is now a good factor of 5 or so larger than it was during that era, and I have seen no signs of such behavior recently.  It is still possible however to be overpowered by a large attacker.  We should be aware of this possibility in doing business on any public coin.