Topic: The Hack and The Rollback (Read 613 times)

Actually there could be a way to cash out without being detected.

The whole point of the blockchain is that all transactions are registered on the ledger. This was fine on paper until the blockchain became hundred of gigabytes long.

The question arose: do we Really need to engrave on the blockchain a transaction where someone buys an online game for BTC?

The idea became that only important transactions get registered on the blockchain. You can still register all your transactions on the blockchain but you will have to pay the fee.

For all other transactions, only the final outcome after all loose change is traded is registered: this happens on the lightning network.

over a significant time, the thief can "launder" the money .

If miners will do agree on rolling back that transaction this would be a big problem for the community because we all know huge numbers of people are getting scammed online using bitcoin if miners wll do a rollback because of hacking people will protest to rollback others scam transaction too then blockchain will have like what paypal have called "dispute"

Well... everybody is saying that IF the miners would try to do a re-org, nobody would be able to stop them.

However, there is always the possiblity of adding a checkpoint.
If most full nodes (including all mining nodes that weren't payed off by binance) would add a checkpoint
( 575955, uint256("0x0000000000000000001e43f03c821f0d95d0ea8a2f09bf9e1a53deba0e34eb18")) they would not accept the "new" chain (the chain not including the thief's transaction).

I'm pretty sure that if 75% of the nodes would add this checkpoint, the discussion about a reorg would stop right away... The beauty is that this could be done at any moment. The downside is that you have to find a way to convince 75% of the full nodes to add the checkpoint to begin with (that being said, a checkpoint can be added to older versions of core aswell, people would not need to upgrade their existing nodes, just add a checkpoint and recompile)

I think we can all agree that users wouldn't fork to roll back the chain. That would never happen and it wasn't the issue here.

The issue is this: What would users do if miners orphaned the chain with the "hack" transaction and kept all other transactions intact on a parallel branch? This isn't a fork and node operators have no power to stop it since both chains are valid.

The only way users could reverse such a block reorg is by hard forking to roll back the chain and then hard-coding the "hack" transaction into the fork. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony?

If it's to someone's advantage then they'll try it. The thing that balances it out is that it's to every single other person's humongous disadvantage to permit it to happen. So they won't.

That's how it's always worked and always will which points to Mr. Binance being fucking dim or embarrassingly uninformed.  

Well i was a bit worried about bitcoin roll back and also some person who make videos on YouTube on my country about crypto, said if roll back happen that could somehow affect the credibility and make the things and price not go how should go.

Security bridge can not be eliminated but proper measure should be put in place so that the risk is minimal. Even though many exchange platform tap their security system idea from binance, the recent hack has shown that no exchange is totally secure. Almost every year, bad news regarding exchange hacking is being witnessed. I could remember last year binance also witness minor security threat. when an hacker deliberately inflate the price of a token listed on the exchange platform. One of the best means through which security bridge can be minimized is by carrying out security auditing regularly. I do not want to believe the hacker or hackers achieved this in one day but constant monitoring and testing of exploit on binance server.

This whole deal makes me sick...

1. Why consider a 51% mining exploit to "FIX" a problem? That sounds retarded.

2. Why consider a 51% mining exploit to "Save" $40Mill from a $100Billion market? thats 0.004% - Dafuq?

Seems like Binance thinks they control the market. Like there shit don't stink like shit. I'd rather see Binance collapse than to see the Bitcoin realm bow down to them like they are some God.

Binance F*cked up. It's that simple. When you F*ck up - You pay the Price. That price today is $40Mill. And seeing how successful Binance is, I'm sure Nobody will be starving or Dying...

In fact - I'm sure Binance is still rolling around in stacks of Cash. Completely Pathetic they would even suggest this.

What you've think of?
OP is just specifying of what will happen after the hacking scenario to Binance exchanges but it doesn't give a huge strike of falls instead, it make an opposite direction into moving high. As we usually think that this will make a huge drop down of prices and sadly, it never had.

Bitcoin rollback. Hah! What do you think this is, Ethereum?

Hacking incident from the most popular exchange is very shocking from the crypto ethusiasm, we don't expect binamce become victim of hackers. Users believe that the security of binance is very strong but of course if the hackes want to attract  they make possible ways how to success the plan.
The good news here is even the bad side news because of binance hack issue bitcoin until now continue to goes uptrend in the market cap.

Not the only bitcoin will possibly do the rollback in case but with the entire marker as well. But we never think that we experience rollback after this short pumps instead, we positively are thinking that it will continue to rise until the end of this year.

Yeah, it really gives me hope and could be possible though.

This is an interesting one. I was a bit confused when the roll back suggestions was made due to some of the great points listed here. And I thought bitcoin was alot vulnerable if transaction was that easy to rollback.
 
The most satisfying part of your points is that it will cost more than was lost to do the roll back...
Do you think a roll back would be reasonable or would be an option if the lost amount was very large, like a billion dollar?  And what if people who are affected by the roll back are compensated from the recovered fund?

It might end up chugging reasonably eventually. In the meantime the entire space would tear itself to shreds.



Summary from Peter Wuille here on how it might play out.

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/87652/51-attack-apparently-very-easy-refering-to-czs-rollback-btc-chain-how-t/87655#87655

I think the incredulity is more to do with someone in that position entertaining an idea that almost anyone else would quash without voicing. It speaks of either - lack of education, stupidity or hubris. After this I hope his power dwindles rather than grows more than ever.  

It seems to me, however, that the miners would be able to comprehend that consent to such a reorg would mean only a narrow peak on their income charts, followed by a vast depression.

Some of the miners and practically the entire developer community would not have decided to mine from the orphaned chain after such incident and develop that currency further?
The previous chain would have been without developers and would quickly become incompatible.

I am glad that binance didnt pursue rollback, otherwise it will have a bad remarks in blockchain technology.

But i think, the safe  thing to do now is for people to make sure they store their assets in their own wallet or cold storage.

the majority of users would have nothing to do with it. it wouldn't have been a fork, just a block reorg. it's two valid branches, one of which gets orphaned. it would have only been between binance and the miners because the only way to incentive miners would be to donate some/most of the hacked coins to them. users wouldn't have been affected and in fact, miners don't need user permission to reorg the chain because it's compatible with the protocol. it's literally how bitcoin works. this is purely a matter of miner financial incentives.

bitcoin is not immutable. that has nothing to do with forks or users. it has to do with miners and it's the reason why we don't consider transactions with low/no confirmations secure.

people keep comparing this idea to the DAO fork but that analogy is horribly inaccurate. a lot of reactions i'm seeing show that many people don't understand bitcoin and how its incentives were designed to work. bitcoin is not here to bow to anyone's misguided views about what bitcoin should be. bitcoin is amoral. bitcoin is permissionless. bitcoin is. people need to stop thrusting their bullshit morality on free markets. it's obvious that a lot of people don't like how bitcoin works because the proposed reorg would have been 100% compatible with the protocol.


i don't think CZ said anything like that at all. there was no button to push, just up to 7k BTC to offer miners if a strong majority were willing to reorg the chain.

i read the threads and watched the AMA and i think people are being too hard on CZ out of ignorance. a bitcoin dev (jeremy rubin) and some others suggested the idea, CZ was totally ignorant about it like it had never crossed his mind, and then he made the horrible, tragic, unforgivable mistake of publicly mentioning that there was a discussion about it.

people in this space are like angry mobs with torches and pitchforks......

No doubt it would have created a clean fork, chain split in two. Between the two camps, the immutable absolutist and the naive realists.

Exactly how it unfolded for ETH and ETC. They must have forgotten the damage that fork caused to ETH. They lost a good chunk of the community there and gave up a core philosophy.

i got pissed at first but then it only makes me chuckle because when i read their statements about the "roll back" and the way they talk about it, it is clear that they have big delusions about their power over bitcoin
it seems like they think just because they run a centralized altcoin exchange with big volume it means they have a "button" which they can push and change the course of bitcoin as they like... lol

I don't think many would agree with this. If we do a roll-back, then every legit transaction will be invalidated as well, not just the 7K hacked bitcoin.
ETH did this back then when DAO was hacked and looked at what happened. Remember MTGox? Bitcoin didn't roll-back back then and neither this time.