On a recent Friday, the cryptocurrency world was shaken by news of a significant hack involving the Bybit exchange, allegedly orchestrated by North Korea’s notorious Lazarus group. This breach resulted in the loss of nearly $1.4 billion in ether (ETH), prompting discussions around the future of Ethereum.
The Proposal for a Rollback
In the aftermath of the hack, Arthur Hayes, the co-founder of BitMEX and a self-identified large holder of ether, took to X to question Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. Hayes proposed whether Buterin would advocate for a rollback of the Ethereum blockchain to assist Bybit. During an X Spaces session, Bybit’s CEO Ben Zhou confirmed that his team had reached out to the Ethereum Foundation to explore whether such a drastic measure could be considered, emphasizing that any decision should reflect the desires of the community.
Community Backlash Against the Idea
Hayes’s suggestion quickly ignited a wave of criticism within the Ethereum community. Many members expressed their strong opposition to the notion of rolling back the blockchain, with some even questioning whether Hayes was serious. CoinDesk sought clarification from Hayes on his comments via X.
The core developer teams and community members are staunchly against any rollback, as it would undermine the fundamental principles of decentralization that Ethereum is built upon. If such a decision were made unilaterally by Buterin, it would contradict the collaborative ethos that defines the network’s governance. One user succinctly stated, “Rolling back the chain would give ETH no purpose. What’s the point if you can just change rules?”
Historical Context: The 2016 DAO Hack
Critics of the rollback proposal often reference the infamous 2016 DAO hack, during which $60 million in ETH was stolen. In that instance, the Ethereum community opted for a hard fork, resulting in a split of the original network into two distinct chains, with the new chain continuing as Ethereum.
However, it’s crucial to note that this hard fork was not a rollback but rather an “irregular state transition.” Ethereum’s structure prevents a true rollback due to its reliance on an account model, which holds users’ ether in their respective accounts. When the developers initiated the hard fork, they upgraded their nodes to a new client. Those who did not upgrade remained on the original chain, which subsequently became known as Ethereum Classic.
The Mechanics of the Hard Fork
During the DAO hack’s aftermath, developers implemented a unique solution. They created a mechanism to transfer the stolen ether from the DAO smart contracts into a refund contract, allowing users to exchange their DAO tokens for ether at a predetermined rate. As Laura Shin of Unchained explained, “The ‘irregular state change’ that they implemented at the time of the DAO hard fork was this: they airlifted all the ETH in the DAO smart contracts out to a refund contract that would send you 1 ETH for every 100 DAO tokens you sent in.”
Conclusion
The idea of rolling back the Ethereum blockchain in light of recent events is met with overwhelming skepticism from the community. The principles of decentralization and governance that underpin Ethereum are at stake, making a rollback not only impractical but also contrary to the network’s foundational values. As discussions continue, the Ethereum community remains committed to maintaining the integrity of the blockchain.
