Does this mean that transactions are going to be rolled back?
If so, are they planning to do this everytime a vulnerability is exploited? Is The DAO too big to fail?
There is definitely a lot of social pressure to consider here, but there is still no central switch. I'm generally not a huge fan of cryptocurrency (as currencies that is, I love the tech), but I fail to understand why so many people who are oppose this move so rabidly. They're in the same situation with respect to forking that they were yesterday: whatever 51% of the community decides to do will happen.
If users truly want to embrace the decentralization then I see issues with the Ethereum maintainers doing very centralized and specific fixes to solve individual problems.
DAO != ETH, but I see how this is an act of self-preservation due to the amount of stakes the maintainers have themselves in ETH.
Sounds someone already got stuck with the hot potato. Was it definitely the hacker? if so, how did the contract's design make the coins unspendable? sounds like it would have been an odd contract to enter into.
Sounds like the powers that be have said, 'I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.' If you're going to do this sort of thing, you need a transparent policy describing the circumstances under which you're going to do that and who will make that decision.
It's almost as if complex contracts need to come under a system of laws and an adjudication process. Otherwise might is right (in this case might being all profit to the superior hackers, or to the people who can make the decision to repudiate the letter of the contract)
What will happen depends on the collective decision of the community which is still being actively hashed out.
At least this way, with no full-scale rollback, other people's transactions won't be affected.