While this does demonstrate a 51% attack, I think there's a key difference here. With the 2010 Bitcoin fork, the problem was a bug in the core infrastructure wh

While this does demonstrate a 51% attack, I think there's a key difference here. With the 2010 Bitcoin fork, the problem was a bug in the core infrastructure which was broken. The 51% attack broke the core infrastructure, but that core infrastructure was already broken. In that case it was a matter of choosing which way the core infrastructure breaks. In the current Ethereum situation, the core Ethereum infrastructure isn't broken. The problem is with the contracts in the DAO. So creating an intentional fork is breaking the core infrastructure--which isn't broken--to fix the problem of a single majority stakeholder. I don't mean to indicate the Bitcoin fork wasn't a problem--the fact that bugs can break core infrastructure also concerns me. But it's a very different problem from the one the DAO is creating here.