The recent theft of approximately 1.4 billion dollars in ether (ETH) suffered by the exchange Bybit by the hacker group Lazarus has reignited the debate on a possible rollback of the Ethereum blockchain to recover the stolen funds.
The proposal by Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, to restore the chain has sparked strong and immediate reactions within the community. Despite the severity of the attack, the response from the Ethereum community was clear: a rollback would represent a violation of the fundamental principles of the network.
In this article, we explore the reasons why a hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain represents an unthinkable solution, as well as technically unfeasible.
Summary
The Bybit hack and the debate on a possible rollback of the Ethereum blockchain
2025 witnessed an unprecedented hacker attack against the cryptocurrency exchange Bybit, with a theft of almost 1.4 billion dollars in ether (ETH), carried out by the infamous Lazarus group, known for its state-sponsored attacks by North Korea. This event sparked an important discussion within the Ethereum community: is a blockchain rollback possible? An idea that has provoked criticism and vehement reactions from the main developers and supporters of the network.
The discussion emerged following a request from Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX and known holder of ETH, who asked on X (formerly Twitter) the co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, if he would be in favor of a chain reset to help Bybit recover the stolen funds. The proposal immediately sparked a negative reaction.
For the Ethereum community, the possibility of retroactively modifying the blockchain, even for such a serious case, would represent a violation of the fundamental principles of immutability and decentralization. It is not just a technical issue, but a philosophy that has guided Ethereum since its inception. Ethereum was designed as a blockchain where transactions cannot be altered, to ensure transparency, security, and trust. The idea of allowing a rollback to correct an error, or an attack, would undermine the very credibility of the network.
The rollback, in fact, implies the return to a previous state of the blockchain, deleting transactions subsequent to that “restore date“. Although this practice may seem like a simple solution, especially to resolve critical events such as a hacker attack, it conflicts with the foundations of Ethereum. If it were possible to restore the blockchain every time something goes wrong, trust would be lost in a system that, once a transaction is made, guarantees that the transaction cannot be modified.
The story of the DAO hack: a completely different context from the current one
To better understand why the rollback in response to the Bybit hack is highly unlikely, it is useful to refer to a historical precedent: the DAO hack of 2016. The DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) was a project that had raised 60 million dollars in ether with the intent to invest in technological projects. However, due to a vulnerability in the smart contract code, an hacker managed to withdraw a large sum of funds from the DAO, raising concern within the entire Ethereum community.
Following this attack, the Ethereum community decided to undertake a drastic measure: a hard fork. The hard fork resulted in a split of the blockchain into two separate versions: one continued as Ethereum (with the recovery of the stolen funds), while the other became Ethereum Classic, remaining unchanged, with the stolen funds still in the DAO. However, it is important to emphasize that this intervention was not a “rollback” in the true sense of the word, but rather an irregular state transition.
On that occasion, the developers did not attempt to “restore” the blockchain to the previous situation, but created a new version of the network. Those who accepted the hard fork found themselves on a blockchain that recovered the funds and returned the ethers to the investors. What happened was a radical change, but not a rollback as it is understood today.
Today, almost 9 years later, the situation is completely different: the Ethereum ecosystem is much more mature and established, and the possibility of performing a rollback would be politically unthinkable. Furthermore, technically Ethereum cannot perform a “rollback” of the network due to its structure based on an account model. In this model, each account is associated with a specific balance of ether (ETH) that is managed and updated with each transaction. If a rollback were executed, it would not be possible to accurately restore the state of the accounts and the smart contracts, as each transaction on Ethereum is part of a sequence of interconnected changes that cannot simply be undone without compromising the consistency and integrity of the network.
Reflections on the nature of Ethereum’s decentralization
One of the most important aspects of Ethereum is its decentralization. It is a concept that goes far beyond the technological aspect of the blockchain: decentralization is the lifeblood that fuels Ethereum, and it is what distinguishes it from centralized systems. If the possibility of a network rollback were admitted every time an error or an attack occurs, it would have a devastating impact on the trust that users place in the system.
“`htmlIn the case of Ethereum, a rollback would mean that someone, or a small group of people, has the power to retroactively modify the blockchain. This would go against the very idea of distributed trust on which Ethereum is based. If a single entity, such as Vitalik Buterin or another developer, could decide to correct an error in this way, it would create a huge point of failure: the blockchain would lose its value as an immutable ledger.
“`In the decentralized system of Ethereum, there is no central authority that can make unilateral decisions. Each transaction is verified by thousands of nodes distributed worldwide, ensuring that no entity has absolute control over the network. The strength of Ethereum lies precisely in its ability to operate without relying on a single point of control.
A rollback to resolve the Bybit hack, or any other issue, would not only violate the principle of immutability, but would destroy the trust of the community. If Ethereum allowed a retroactive revision of transactions, it would be like giving the green light to a continuous adjustment of the rules, leading the blockchain to become a centralized system where decisions are made by a few. This is not only a risk for Ethereum, but for the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The importance of immutability
Immutability is one of the most appreciated features by those who support Ethereum. When a transaction is recorded on the blockchain, it is final and irrevocable. This means that users can rely on the fact that their funds are safe, without the risk of being altered or stolen through external attacks or retroactive changes. This security is one of the reasons why Ethereum has managed to build such a strong community and a trust that other cryptocurrencies do not have.
