The Hack and The Rollback

[Adriano2010]

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.

[gentlemand]

This whole deal makes me sick...

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.  

[squatter]

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.

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?

[mocacinno]

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)

[Astvile]

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"

[benjamin07]

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 .