The crypto community is divided over calls for an Ethereum blockchain rollback following a massive security breach at Bybit.
On February 21, the exchange lost nearly $1.5 billion in ETH to hackers, sparking discussions about whether Ethereum should intervene to recover the stolen funds.
What is a Blockchain Rollback?
A blockchain rollback, also known as a reorganization, involves reversing confirmed transactions to restore the network to an earlier state.
This process usually happens after a major security breach or exploit. Validators must reach a consensus to discard the affected blocks, effectively erasing the malicious transactions.
Despite its potential benefits, a rollback remains a controversial and rarely used measure due to its impact on a blockchain’s trust and decentralization.
Blockchains operate on the principle of immutability, meaning transactions are expected to be final once confirmed. So, rolling back transactions challenges this principle, raising concerns about the security and reliability of the network.
Crypto Leaders Clash Over Ethereum Rollback Proposal
BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes has been vocal in advocating for a rollback to solve the ByBit hack. He pointed to the 2016 DAO hack, where Ethereum underwent a hard fork to recover stolen funds, as precedent.
Hayes argued that since Ethereum previously compromised on immutability, another intervention should not be off the table.
“My own view as a mega ETH bag holder is ETH stopped being money in 2016 after the DAO hack hardfork. If the community wanted to do it again, I would support it because we already voted no on immutability in 2016,” Hayes said.
JAN3 CEO Samson Mow also supported the rollback, stating it could prevent North Korea from using the stolen funds to fund its nuclear weapons program.
However, not everyone agrees. Pseudonymous crypto trader Borovik strongly opposed the idea, arguing that a rollback would jeopardize Ethereum’s credibility and neutrality.
Bitcoin advocate Jimmy Song also dismissed the possibility, stating that the Bybit hack cannot be compared to the 2016 DAO exploit. Song emphasized that the DAO hack allowed for a 30-day intervention, whereas the Bybit attack is already finalized, making a rollback impractical.
“I know people are expecting the Ethereum Foundation to roll back the chain, but I suspect it’s already too much of a mess to do it cleanly,” Song added.
Meanwhile, Ethereum supporter Adriano Feria introduced an alternative perspective. He argued that Bybit could have avoided this situation by using a Layer 2 (L2) solution with conditional reversible transactions.
According to Feria, blockchain technology needs some form of reversibility to ensure real-world adoption.
“Whether through social recovery or another pre-determined, immutable, and transparent decision-making process, real-world mass adoption will not work without reversible transactions. Without this capability, transactional activity will inevitably gravitate toward TradFi systems that already provide it,” Feria stated.
This debate raises a fundamental question for Ethereum: should it prioritize immutability or intervene in extreme cases?
While some see a rollback as a necessary response to an unprecedented loss, others fear it could undermine the core principles of decentralization. Ethereum’s next steps will likely shape its long-term credibility and trust within the crypto space.
Disclaimer
In adherence to the Trust Project guidelines, BeInCrypto is committed to unbiased, transparent reporting. This news article aims to provide accurate, timely information. However, readers are advised to verify facts independently and consult with a professional before making any decisions based on this content. Please note that our Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers have been updated.
