A public blockchain was hacked. The plan is to roll the ledger back to before the attack.
I saw a MultiversX announcement, and my first reaction was: the mainnet is down.
The reason is that the attacker targeted an “atomicity” vulnerability in the virtual machine, writing a batch of states onto the chain that shouldn’t exist. Instead of just patching and rebooting, the team is preparing to carry out a “coordinated hard fork”—restart the chain from a checkpoint that has been confirmed safe. In effect, it’s rolling the ledger back by a segment. 🧐
Current progress: internal testing is done, the mainnet checkpoint is also ready. Next, they still need to bring validators and exchanges together to conduct testnet drills. The announcement repeatedly reminds users: the mainnet is still down—don’t broadcast transactions, and don’t use exchanges or cross-chain bridges for deposits/withdrawals.
Fixing the code and recording the rollback are two different things. The patch addresses how it should run going forward; the rollback concerns the segment that has already been written to the ledger. The former is an engineering issue, while the latter is more like setting rules for the chain.
So I want to ask: when it comes to this kind of “rewind” done to recover losses, would you rather treat it as an emergency measure, or as a precedent that shouldn’t be set?
👉 关注我，点击进入聊天室，学习更多策略
#multiversx计划协调硬分叉恢复
I saw a MultiversX announcement, and my first reaction was: the mainnet is down.
The reason is that the attacker targeted an “atomicity” vulnerability in the virtual machine, writing a batch of states onto the chain that shouldn’t exist. Instead of just patching and rebooting, the team is preparing to carry out a “coordinated hard fork”—restart the chain from a checkpoint that has been confirmed safe. In effect, it’s rolling the ledger back by a segment. 🧐
Current progress: internal testing is done, the mainnet checkpoint is also ready. Next, they still need to bring validators and exchanges together to conduct testnet drills. The announcement repeatedly reminds users: the mainnet is still down—don’t broadcast transactions, and don’t use exchanges or cross-chain bridges for deposits/withdrawals.
Fixing the code and recording the rollback are two different things. The patch addresses how it should run going forward; the rollback concerns the segment that has already been written to the ledger. The former is an engineering issue, while the latter is more like setting rules for the chain.
So I want to ask: when it comes to this kind of “rewind” done to recover losses, would you rather treat it as an emergency measure, or as a precedent that shouldn’t be set?
👉 关注我，点击进入聊天室，学习更多策略
#multiversx计划协调硬分叉恢复
