以太坊社區拒絕回滾網絡以否定$ 1.4B bybit hack的想法

據稱，週五，加密貨幣交易所BYBIT被朝鮮的拉撒路集團（Lazarus Group）入侵，該集團從交易所（ETH）中排出了近14億美元的Ether（ETH）。

Major cryptocurrency exchange Bybit was allegedly hacked on Friday by North Korea’s Lazarus group, which drained nearly $1.4 billion in ether (ETH) from the exchange.

據稱，朝鮮的拉撒路集團（Lazarus Group）在周五遭到了主要的加密貨幣交易所交易所Bybit的侵犯，該集團從交易所（ETH）中排出了近14億美元的Ether（ETH） 。

Following the news, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes – who also claims to be a major ether (ETH) holder – wrote a post on X to Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin on whether he will “advocate to roll back the chain to help @Bybit_Official.”

此消息之後，Bitmex聯合創始人Arthur Hayes（也聲稱是主要的Ether（ETH）持有人）在X上寫了一篇有關以太坊聯合創始人Vitalik Buterin的帖子，他是否會“提倡“倡導”鏈條來幫助@ @ bybit_official。”

Meanwhile, in an X spaces session, Bybit CEO Ben Zhou revealed that his team had also reached out to the Ethereum Foundation to see if it was something the network would consider, adding that such a decision should be based on what the network's community wants.

同時，在X空間會議中，Bybit首席執行官Ben Zhou透露，他的團隊還與以太坊基金會聯繫，以查看網絡是否會考慮的事情，並補充說，這樣的決定應該基於網絡社區的需求。

Hayes's post immediately provoked a fierce reaction from the Ethereum community, which was firm in its belief that it wouldn't happen. Some even questioned whether the BitMEX founder was joking. CoinDesk reached out to Hayes over X to clarify his comments.

海耶斯的帖子立即引起了以太坊社區的激烈反應，這堅定地認為不會發生。一些人甚至質疑Bitmex的創始人是否在開玩笑。 Coindesk通過X與Hayes聯繫，以澄清他的評論。

Ethereum members, like the core developer teams, are vastly against “rolling back” the network because it would override core elements of decentralization. If Buterin decided on his own that it would happen, then that would be seen as the end of Ethereum’s ethos, which heavily involves various developer teams and other community members when it comes to the health and state of the blockchain.

像核心開發人員團隊一樣，以太坊成員非常反對“回滾”網絡，因為它將覆蓋權力下放的核心要素。如果Buterin決定會發生這種情況，那麼這將被視為以太坊精神的終結，在涉及區塊鏈的健康和狀態時，這大大涉及各種開發人員團隊和其他社區成員。

“Rolling back the chain would give ETH no purpose,” said user @the_weso in a post on X. “What's the point if you can just change rules.”

用戶@the_weso在X上的一篇文章中說：“回滾鏈條將無目的。

Some outside the Ethereum community pointed to the 2016 DAO hack as an example when $60 million in ETH was stolen. The network went forward with a hard fork, splitting the old network into two, and the new chain continued on as Ethereum.

以太坊社區以外的一些人指出，2016年的DAO Hack是一個例子，當時6000萬美元的ETH被盜。該網絡用硬叉向前走，將舊網絡分為兩個，而新鏈則繼續作為以太坊。

However, that hard fork was not a “rollback.” It was known as an “irregular state transition.” Ethereum technically can’t “roll back” the network because it relies on an account model, where accounts hold users' ETH.

但是，硬叉並不是“回滾”。它被稱為“不規則狀態過渡”。從技術上講，以太坊無法“回滾”網絡，因為它依賴帳戶模型，其中帳戶持有用戶的ETH。

At the time of the hack, developers upgraded their nodes to a new client or software. Those who didn’t upgrade their nodes were still on the old chain, which became known as Ethereum Classic.

在黑客攻擊時，開發人員將節點升級到新客戶或軟件。那些沒有升級節點的人仍在舊鏈上，該鏈被稱為以太坊經典。

When the nodes upgraded to the new software, the stolen ETH could move from one Ethereum account address to the next.

當節點升級到新軟件時，被盜的ETH可以從一個以太坊帳戶地址轉移到下一個。

“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,” wrote Laura Shin of Unchained in a post on X.

“他們在DAO Hard Fork時實施的'不規則狀態變化'是：他們將DAO Smart合同中的所有ETH空運到退款合同中，將為您發送100個DAO TOKENS的退款合同，您發送的100個ETH 。”