Once upon a time there was a group that claimed to grant wishes. One day a lone person joined the group and said, "I wish to have all of the group's money." Not surprisingly, most of the group answered back, "but if we do that, we can't grant anymore wishes." The lone person said, " but you promised to grant individual wishes to group members under any circumstances!" So the spokesmen for the group replied, "Well, yes, but we are all individuals with our own wishes and we wish to keep our money, and I know that's not exactly written in our mission statement but it's in the code that we can deny this request by way of forking the code. Don't you see that the code is still king? You should have known that before joining. Look dude, if we completely grant that wish then we're all screwed. We can't take our money back (yes, we tried) so in a way your wish has been granted. How about this? You stay here and we'll continue on except that your money will be different than ours."
So the lone person said, " Fine, then my smaller group will promise to never deny a wish--but I'll write the code so that no one can ever be like me and make a request for all of my group's money. Something you all should have done in the first place."
So, both groups were formed and they continued arguing with each other for awhile now.
The end?
Anyway, that's basically it, right? The attacker's (as he, she, they call themselves) code will most likely die off but I've seen some pretty strange stuff in crypto-land over the years. Who really knows at this point? Both sets of code just may get stronger as time goes on. If they both do these kinds of hacks will become less likely to take place.
The real question becomes who was right and who was wrong? This was not meant to answer that question but get people thinking. What will the top block-chain minds and developers gravitate towards? Strange days indeed.
