@notyomomma
Thanks! I appreciate the commentary.

I get more exposure looking for quality posts like his and providing counterpoints.
My average post barely makes $0.50 and it takes a lot more effort than simply posting a comment like this.

Remember that under the law, contracts are whatever people agree to.
However any contract which is illegal is prima facie invalid.
One affirmative criteria when deciding that a contract is illegal is that the contract allows for unjust enrichment.
But the law requires that you take affirmative steps though in order to preserve your rights.

This has been the core of my argument on the DAO.

The logic is this...
When taken as a whole, Ethereum is a contract enforcement network.
Mining is enforcing.

The DAO was a contract that allowed one party to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Ergo the contract was rendered invalid the moment this was discovered.
Since each miner is operated by individuals, they are each severally liable for attempting to enforce an illegal contract. Like a bill collector who keeps trying collect on bad debt.

The solution was actually to remove IP of ETH away from the code base of ETH and spin a new ETH codebase which "unmade" that section of the blockchain. Essentially redacting the section of the contract which allowed for unjust enrichment. This new codebase became the "real" ETH the moment the IP holders decided to grant that code those rights.
This induced a split. The split was originally just the DAO attacker's exit scam. But it ended up becoming a reality unto itself.

Because everyone seems pretty well happy with the split, and everyone ended up richer, the ETC/ETH illegality question is moot now. This is because everyone was made whole.