Labelling the ethereum fork (I assume you are speaking of the DAO) as criminal is interesting. They simply executed the contract according to the terms of code which isn't necessarily illegal. At the time, ETH was a hundredth of its current size (losing 1/3rd its value on the contract) and considered an extinction level event. The other cryptos were innovating at a rapid rate to make "the next bitcoin" and could well have surpassed ETH in market cap.
Hacking the DAO was objectively criminal activity, since it was illegal.
Ethereum agreed to fork to within a margin of error. I know this because the post-fork version of Ethereum is much bigger.
Yes, similar reasons would justify taking your fiat away. I do sympathize with the Ethereum Classic crowd and generally agree with the code is law idea. The investors very well knew the risks.
Many of your comments over the latest 48 hours do as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41786408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41786370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41779059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41778991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41775045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41775030
The context of your continuous hate-driven behavior, in egregious violation of both the site rules and basic norms of healthy discourse, is important information for anyone else reading the thread.
The rest of your comment was only added an hour after the comment was originally posted, presumably because you realised in hindsight you were doing the thing you were complaining about. It was a good start, but you should have deleted the old comment instead of appending to it.
Brief commentary on the appended content: the blockchain rules constitute a state (as in a country/government/central authority) and it's good that there's a way to take money away from criminals, actually. Even cryptocurrency people agree, since Ethereum even forked itself to cancel a criminal's transaction once, and the post-fork chain is massively more popular.
It's simple selfishness - the people with authority to choose to fork had much more money post-fork, so they chose to fork and take the money away from criminals. In other circumstances, they are the ones having money taken away by the government, so they choose to not fork or design protocols in ways that help the government get money. No moral position is involved.