- Bybit has lost more than 400,000 ETH in piracy worth $ 1.5 billion.
- The cryptography community discusses if a “return” is necessary.
- Some criticisms say that would not be possible at this stage.
Friday, a massive hack targeting the exchanges of cryptocurrency shaken the market, resulting In the loss of more than 401,000 Ethereum worth around 1.5 billion dollars.
He also relaunched a debate on the question of whether the Ethereum blockchain should be “returned” in response, echoing the Dao Hard Fork 2016 debates.
In this incident, the attackers exploited the vulnerabilities in a decentralized autonomous organization to divert millions in Etherum, which prompted the community to implement a hard fork which restored the funds but divided the network.
The CEO of Bybit, Ben Zhou, was prudent in his remarks when he was asked for a decline. “I really don’t know. I don’t know if it is a man’s decision. Based on the Blockchain spirit, it may be a voting process to see what the community wants ”, Zhou declared In a discussion on X spaces yesterday.
He added that his team was already in talks with the co-founder Ethereum Vitalik Buerin and the Ethereum Foundation for all the recommendations that could help reduce the fallout.
The debate quickly spread in social media. The former CEO of Bitmex, Arthur Hayes, went to Twitter, posing a question In the co-founder Ethereum Vitalik Buterin: “Are you going to plead to make the chain back down to help to Border?”
In what seems to be an ironic remark, Hayes added: “ETH stopped being money in 2016 after the Hard Hardfork Dao. If the community wanted to start again, I would support it because we have already voted not on immutability in 2016, why not start again? »»
In the middle of the exchanges, Laura Shin of the Podcast Unchained Addition of a context And clarifications concerning the proposals of “hindsight”, saying: “I am sure they would not do it”.
Tibia clarified The fact that the term “decline” comes from the design of Bitcoin, where each transaction is linked in a continuous guard chain.
In Bitcoin, the inversion of a transaction would require cancel all subsequent transactions to maintain the integrity of the chain.
However, Ethereum uses a model where the sales are updated directly through intelligent contracts and transactions, which means that there is not a single traceable chain which can be reversed in the same way.
Instead of a real step back, what happened during the Dao incident was an “irregular change of state” which reassigned funds from compromise contracts without rewinding the whole blockchain.
Kyle Baird is the editor of the DL News weekend. Do you have a tip? Email to kbaird@dlnews.com.
