Bybit Allegedly Hacked by Lazarus Group
On Friday, the cryptocurrency exchange Bybit reportedly fell victim to a hacking incident attributed to North Korea’s notorious Lazarus group, resulting in a staggering loss of nearly $1.4 billion in ether (ETH) from its platform. In the aftermath of this breach, Arthur Hayes, the co-founder of BitMEX and a self-proclaimed significant holder of ether, took to the social media platform X to address Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. He posed a provocative question regarding the possibility of advocating for a rollback of the Ethereum blockchain to assist @Bybit_Official.
During an X spaces session, Bybit’s CEO Ben Zhou disclosed that his team had initiated communication with the Ethereum Foundation to explore whether such a drastic measure could be considered. He emphasized that the decision should ultimately reflect the will of the Ethereum community.
Hayes’s comments ignited a firestorm of reactions within the Ethereum community, which overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a rollback. Many community members expressed disbelief, with some even questioning whether Hayes was being serious. CoinDesk reached out to Hayes on X for clarification regarding his remarks.
Prominent members of the Ethereum ecosystem, including core developers, are staunchly opposed to any notion of “rolling back” the blockchain. They argue that such an action would undermine fundamental principles of decentralization. Should Buterin unilaterally decide to pursue a rollback, it could signify a betrayal of Ethereum’s ethos, which emphasizes the involvement of diverse developer teams and community stakeholders in preserving the integrity and state of the blockchain.
One user, @the_weso, articulated this sentiment succinctly on X, stating, “Rolling back the chain would give ETH no purpose. What’s the point if you can just change the rules?” This illustrates the deep-rooted belief within the community that the integrity of the blockchain must remain intact.
Interestingly, some individuals outside the Ethereum community have drawn parallels to the infamous 2016 DAO hack, where approximately $60 million in ETH was stolen. In that instance, the network opted for a hard fork, which led to a split between the original blockchain and a new one that continued as Ethereum. However, it is crucial to note that this hard fork was not a “rollback”; it was classified as an “irregular state transition.” Ethereum’s architecture prevents a direct rollback of the network due to its reliance on an account model, wherein accounts store users’ ETH.
In response to the 2016 hack, developers upgraded their nodes to a new software version. Those who did not upgrade remained on the old chain, which subsequently became known as Ethereum Classic. Upon upgrading, the stolen ETH could be transferred from one Ethereum account to another.
As noted by Laura Shin of Unchained in a post on X, the “irregular state change” implemented during the DAO hard fork involved effectively “airlifting” all the ETH from the DAO smart contracts to a refund contract, which allowed users to receive 1 ETH for every 100 DAO tokens they submitted. This historical context highlights the complexities surrounding governance and decision-making within the Ethereum community.
