The cryptographic community is divided on calls for an Ethereum blockchain decline following a massive security violation in Bybit.
On February 21, the Stock Exchange lost nearly $ 1.5 billion in ETH because of pirates, arousing discussions on the question of whether Ethereum should intervene to recover the stolen funds.
What is a blockchain hindsight?
A blockchain decline, also known as reorganization, involves reverse confirmed transactions to restore the network in previous state.
This process generally occurs after a major security violation or feat. Validators must achieve consensus to eliminate affected blocks, effectively efforging malware.
Despite its potential advantages, a decline remains a controversial measurement and rarely used because of its impact on the confidence and decentralization of a blockchain.
Blockchains operate on the principle of immutability, which means that transactions should be final once confirmed. Thus, the return of transactions calls into question this principle, which raises concerns concerning the security and reliability of the network.
Crypto leaders compete on the Ethereum withdrawal proposal
The co-founder of Bitmex, Arthur Hayes, was expressed to plead for a glue to resolve the Hack of Bybit. He underlined the 2016 Hack Dao, where Ethereum underwent a hard fork to recover stolen funds, as a precedent.
Hayes argued that, like Ethereum previously compromised on immutability, another intervention should not be outside the table.
“My own point of view as a holder of the Méga ETH of the bag is that ETH stopped being money in 2016 after the Hackfork Dao Hack. If the community wanted to do it again, I would support it because we have already voted not on immutability in 2016, “said Hayes.
Jan3 CEO Samson Mow also argued the rollback, declaring that he could prevent North Korea from using the stolen funds to finance its nuclear weapons program.
However, not everyone agrees. The merchant of crypto pseudonym Borovik firmly opposed the idea, arguing that a decline would endanger the credibility and neutrality of Ethereum.
Bitcoin lawyer Jimmy Song also rejected the possibility, declaring that bybit’s hacking cannot be compared to the 2016 DAO feat. Song stressed that the Hack Dao allowed an intervention of 30 days, while the attack de Bybit is already finalized, which makes a decline impracticable.
“I know that people expect the Ethereum Foundation to move the chain, but I suspect that it is already too disorder to do it properly,” added Song.
Meanwhile, the supporter of Ethereum, Adriano Feria, introduced an alternative perspective. He argued that Bybit could have avoided this situation using a layer 2 solution (L2) with conditional reversible transactions.
According to Feria, blockchain technology needs a form of reversibility to ensure the adoption of the real world.
“Whether by social recovery or another predetermined, immutable and transparent decision -making process, mass adoption in the real world will not work without reversible transactions. Without this capacity, transactional activity will inevitably revolve towards the Tradfi systems which already provide it, ”said Feria.
Should this debate raises a fundamental question for Ethereum: should it prioritize immutability or intervene in extreme cases?
While some consider a decline as a necessary response to an unprecedented loss, others fear that this will undermine the fundamental principles of decentralization. The next stages of Ethereum will probably shape its long -term credibility and its confidence in cryptographic space.
Non-liability clause
In membership of the Trust project guidelines, Beincrypto has embarked on transparent impartial reports. This press article aims to provide precise and timely information. However, readers are invited to check the facts independently and consult a professional before making decisions according to this content. Please note that our terms and conditions, our privacy policy and our non-responsibility clauses have been updated.
