The coon won't roll back, but it has sparked a renewed debate between the two pool founders

After a day of dealing with the theft of money has been calmed down, money's CEO zhao changpeng has also said through Twitter after communicating with all parties, decided not to use the reorganization method.

But zhao changpeng proposed that the reorganization is not what he meant, but & NBSP; Jeremy Rubin  Suggestion ‏ & have spent Rubin is also a core contributor to bitcoin. Rubin's suggestion is to create a TX that would keep all the other TX and simply distribute the hackers' tokens to the miners. It is not a rollback, nor is it a return of money to the yen.

Zhao changpeng then listed the following points for attention in the Twitter:

Advantages: 1. Transfer & quot; "To the miners. Revenge & quot; Hackers; 2. Deter future hacking attempts in the process; 3. Explore the possibilities of how the bitcoin network can handle this situation.

Cons: 1. We may damage the credibility of bitcoin; 2. & have spent 2. We could split the bitcoin network and community, both of which seem to have cost more than $40 million in retaliation. 3. The hackers did prove that there were weaknesses in our design and user uncertainty that were not apparent before. 4. & have spent It's a very expensive lesson for us, but it's still a lesson. It is our responsibility to protect the security of users' funds.

In response to the rollback, coin printing founder pan zhibiao and lebitt mine pool founder and CEO jol kong respectively expressed their views:

Both sides agree that restructuring is feasible, but it would raise serious objections from the community because of the violationBitcoin's most important feature: its imtamability.

Then jiangzhuo based on pan zhibiao analysis further published his views.

Pan zhibiao analysis:

The currency security process publicly handled this incident, feedback is very fast, or worthy of affirmation. CZ may not know much about computation and mining, and it's normal to think that, after all, he just wants his money back and doesn't mean to hurt anyone else.

At the same time, he commented, "you know there's no rollback, and even rollbacks can happen with UASF. What everyone hates is that the big guys are holding a closed-door meeting to decide whether or not everyone's bitcoin is rolled back...

1. It is theoretically possible to use a reorganization (reorg) for double-currency trading. Technically, the impact of reorganization is much less than that of soft (hard) bifurcation.
2. How feasible: half. CZ contact a lu ji calculation force, direct calculation force plus can directly strive for the calculation force estimated about 26E, slightly more than half of the whole network. There are additional rewards for taking part in the pool, which can attract intermediate pool miners to join and eventually achieve a stable half of the net. It is easier to cajole a miner than a pit.
3. Assuming that 65% of the force was involved in the reorganization at the time of 30 confirmations of the stolen transaction, it would take 16 hours and 40 minutes to reach the same height.
4. Once the height wins out, the net forces converge into a single chain and nothing seems to have happened. Of course, non-participating pools can be costly.
4. In the next 17 hours, there is a high probability that people will find out about the operation, because the whole net block speed is too slow, and many monitoring systems will detect bifurcation.
5. Possible action: UASF. Before the reshuffle is successful, a full-node patch is released that forces the block hash value of the stolen transaction, so that even the winning reshuffle chain cannot override the existing data.
6. Bitcoin nodes have bifurcated across the net due to disagreement over the block hash of stolen transactions.
7. After the hard fork, the price of the two chains is determined by the market. The CZ can get back the 7k on the recombination chain, but not on the chain that refuses to recombine.
8. If the reorganization is successful, it will not fundamentally change bitcoin, only confirm that a few large transactions are no longer safe. I will send and receive 7K COINS in the future and wait for the confirmation of the number for at least one day.
Several discussions:

1. What if it was a government or even an agency like the FBI that lost the money? What happens if the agency asks each pool, whether company or individual, to restructure?
2. What if the money was stolen by a global terrorist organization? What if they take 7K to buy a nuclear bomb?
In both of these scenarios, UASF will happen. There is no good or evil in this world, only untamable data. Only full nodes can define your own bitcoin.
update

1. There is nothing here to defend the safety of currency, only the analysis of possibilities and steps, or there are many mistakes.
2. When BFX lost 100,000 RMB, it also consulted several mining pools to consider the restructuring plan, but they did not disclose this history. By contrast, coon is still the best at transparency.
3. Any decision is tradeoff
4. The currency world is much more mature. When BFX lost its COINS, the price fluctuated wildly

Troll analyzed and replied to pan zhibiao's analysis:

1. & have spent Zhao changpeng's claim that a possible rollback of BTC transactions to recover the lost 7000BTC caused a great deal of controversy.

2, the rollback is technically feasible, as long as there is more than 51% to calculate force, in front of the stolen money trading block, start digging a fork, and remove the stolen deal only (and subsequent trade), normal packing of other transactions in the chain, that after the new fork length more than the original is hotlinking, block restructuring occurs (reorg).

Reorganization (reorg) can be understood simply as: the new fork overwrites the original hotlinking. The effect is to roll back the stolen transaction separately without affecting other transactions. The rollback was fiercely opposed by members of the community (as was I) because it changed the most important feature of bitcoin: its imtamability.

3. The rollback was fiercely opposed by community members (and I am against it, too) because it changed the most important feature of bitcoin: its imtamability. But others are taking it a step further:

Kevin pan :& & NBSP;
1. What if it was a government or even an agency like the FBI that lost the money? What happens if the agency asks each pool, whether company or individual, to restructure?
2. What if the money was stolen by a global terrorist organization? What if they take 7K to buy a nuclear bomb?

Pan's answer: run the whole node, and then actively play a full node patch (UASF) before the reorg occurs, which can force the acceptance of stolen transactions, so that even the winning reorg chain cannot rewrite the existing data.

4, pan zhibiao's answer is not feasible, according to his approach, and can not prevent BTC trading is modified, just through active patch, fork out a transaction has not been modified fork chain.

If the government legally requires the mine (mostly run by companies) to roll back a single stolen transaction, the mine must do so. The rollback of this transaction will not have much immediate impact in a short period of time. It can be expected that the branch after rollback will still occupy the majority of market value, users and resources.

According to pan zhibiao's process, only a few people (who have the ability to notice the event in a short time and make full node patches) keep an unmodified chain, which may end up like ETH (rolling back DAO stolen COINS) & ETC (which retains DAO stolen money).

5. So what if bitcoin's "tamperability" is important? Quite simply, no deep reorganization (reorg) is allowed. In addition to bugs in the history of bitcoin, there has never been a reorganization (reorg) of more than 6 blocks, and users generally believe that 6 is safe, so they can write directly in the code: reorg of more than 10 blocks is not acceptable.

6. Is it familiar? Yes, this is how the BCH added protection rules (rolling checkpoints) during the BSV force war. If the theft happened on the BCH, there would be no such argument at all, because once the BCH is confirmed above 10, it can never be called back -- absolutely, even if you have 100 times more power to split, the code does not accept reorg for more than 10 blocks.Isn't this the "tamperability" that BTC (Core) supporters like pan zhibiao dream of?

7,Has a normal block 6 rollback occurred historically? Not even block 3. (except for block 6 rollback in BSV)Block 6 rollback is an attack. Why allow an attack to happen

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia