You're literally talking across yourself, at least that's how I read it.

Your first comment [1]

> As long as everyone agrees i see absolutely no problem

and now

> Some agreed, others didn't...Consensus doesn't require everyone to agree, just the majority

So you literally just said there is a problem.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27666781

You're being pedantic, it's clear what was meant even if it wasn't properly stated.

It was clear that it was a contradiction even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

Thank goodness we've gotten away from a system where the government can arbitrarily decide to steal my money and towards a glorious future where a bunch of randos on the internet can arbitrarily decide to steal my money. I feel so much better.

(copy-pasting)

The DAO was a very extraordinary event that occurred under very unique and unrepeatable circumstances.

1. Ethereum had just launched. There was a sense of everything being in beta.

2. The Ethereum stakeholder set was very small, so obtaining consensus for such a controversial hard fork was much easier to accomplish than it would be today.

3. The economy on Ethereum was very small, so

a) a hard fork was far less disruptive than it would be today.

b) an undermining of Ethereum's commitment to neutrality/immutability jeapardized far fewer decentralized application projects than it would today.

4. Smart contracts were completely new, so there was a sense that people could be forgiven for their mistakes.

5. The Ethereum Foundation had promoted the idea of a DAO on their website, and several Ethereum founders had promoted the specific DAO that ended up being hacked. These facts made the DAO appear to be more than a completely third party app.

Ethereum is very different today than it was in 2016, and a DAO-scale mishap would never lead to a hard fork again.

One way of reading this comment is that you concur that there's a problem.

One way of reading this coontent is that most don't think there's a problem