Yesterday, the money stolen was discussed in the city, and apart from the intricate conspiracy theories behind the incident itself, it was Zhao Changpeng’s later tweet that provoked a thousand waves:
The meaning of this tweet should also be read by the news. The general idea is that we do not use the block reorganization plan to recover our losses.
- The market responded positively to the positive, and the downward trend has not changed.
- People familiar with the matter: Fidelity, one of the world's largest asset management companies, will provide bitcoin trading services to institutional clients within a few weeks.
- Viewpoint | Differences in investment properties between Bitcoin and Ethereum, like gold and listed companies
- Investment management company VanEck: Bitcoin is a great tool for diversifying your portfolio
- Bitcoin skyrocketing: or related to the Turkish currency crash
- North Korea, risk and bitcoin
And this also makes the big V on Twitter ridicule:
as well as:
"You are a Bitcoin Ethereum. If you come back, you will come back?"
The V god, who has the most innocent lying guns, said that he was arrogant when he arrived:
"What are you talking about?"
In fact, apart from these ridicules and discussions, a more serious matter is placed in front of all Bitcoin supporters: Is block reorganization a possible event?
In fact, many people do not understand what is called block reorganization, but also see many people say it seems to have the same meaning as the word "rollback". In fact, if you don't understand the technology at all, you can also see from these news that some technical means are used to deny the transactions that have been confirmed by the block.
Deny transactions that have occurred.
Yes, you are not mistaken, challenging the sacred attributes of Bitcoin "not tamperable".
Is there such a possibility? This is bitcoin, not ETH/EOS/XRP and other coins?
Users have exclaimed, if Bitcoin can roll back, is it bitcoin?
I was extremely shocked when I got this news, especially Zhao Changpeng’s tweet: we decided NOT to.
This contains two meanings:
First, we have had the idea of “block reorganization” to make up for the loss, and we have discussed it with mining giant Wu Jihan.
Second, it is not impossible, but not willing. If we like, we can do it.
Scared me, really.
my point of view:
First, the possibility of doing it is very low, even if there is Wu Jihan and the powerful computing power behind it.
Second, the significance of doing this is very small, after all, only 7,000 BTC.
Third, he said that it can be technically implemented, but I don't think it can be technically implemented.
Fourth, it is very likely that there will be a fork in doing so because the community’s perception of the matter is absolutely very inconsistent.
Five, in short, it is very dangerous.
But to put aside these discussions, the more terrible thing than discussing these things is: Is this actually a discussion?
And is it a serious discussion?
Scared me, really.
I originally thought that it was not technically feasible, but I saw a microblog of my brother late last night. His analysis is actually feasible, and the success rate is more than half. The specific analysis is also shared with you:
So things have become: It is indeed feasible, so how many coins are stolen and worth the "rollback" of the Bitcoin world?
If it is stolen, it is 70,000 bitcoins? 700,000? Is it necessary to come back like this?
What is the difference between the Ethereum and the hard forks of the year when the bitter gods taunted?
Although many people later came out to give Bitcoin supporters a reassurance that this would not happen, many users have already planted a seed in their hearts. As in the previous period, although it was only an opinion put forward by one person, it was one of the things that was rumored by the community and the media: Bitcoin was issued.
Although it is only a possibility, but only to generate such ideas and discussions, the community is on the verge of enemies.
Many people say that the so-called "sacred attribute" is completely unquestionable. Isn't that the same as religion?
(The so-called sacred attributes mainly include: decentralization, non-tamperable, limited total)
In fact, this is not the case, except that in the current situation, almost all Bitcoin supporters still believe that if the "sacred attributes" of several cores of Bitcoin are questioned and triggered discussion, then there may be a community split. It is something that people don't want to see. After all, the current bitcoin is still too small, and everyone needs to unite and move forward. The decentralized, non-tamperable, and limited total attributes are bitcoin's gold signboards and are essential attributes that distinguish them from the existing currency that Bitcoin is replacing. So everyone thinks if someone comes out to challenge them. Attributes, then you should not look forward to Bitcoin, but look forward to your own benefit.
Of course, this is not to say cz, after all, the profits of the currency are everyone’s eyes.
However, just as I am clearly opposed to Bitcoin over-issuing and shrinking blocks, I also clearly opposed the artificial intervention in the Bitcoin network and tampering with transactions. If we come across a power ZF, is it legally required to restructure the transaction? If the money is stolen, use these coins to finance terrorist organizations? Mine pools (mostly for businesses) should still compromise.
The rest, leave it to you for discussion.
Author: William Chen