7 blocks in the Ethereum Beacon chain have been reorganized

The Ethereum Beacon Chain has been exposed to a security risk, known as Blockchain “reorganization.” The change in the Ethereum Beacon chain lasted seven blocks, the longest in years.

According to Beacon Scan data, on May 25, 7 blocks of 3887.075 to 3887.081 were removed from the Beacon Chain between 08:55:23 and 08:56:35 AM UTC.

For a better understanding, reorganization or reorganization can occur through network failure. It could be like a bug or a malicious attack. It results in a duplicate version of the Blockchain. Now, the longer the reorganization takes, the more serious the consequences.

All things considered, according to a Twitter thread by Gnosis CEO Martin Kopelman, the reorganization of Ethereum is evidence that there is more work to be done before the merger.

«This shows that the current node certificate strategy needs to be reconsidered. For a more stable chain».

The Ethereum signal chain experienced a deep rearrangement of 7 blocks about 2.5 hours ago. This indicates that the current contract certification strategy must be reconsidered, hopefully leading to a more stable chain! (suggestions already in place) pic.twitter.com/BkQrKuUlw1

– Martin Koeppelmann 🇺🇦 (@koeppelmann) 25 May 2022

As an intriguing fact, Martin Köppelmann’s Twitter thread has caught the attention of some of the major developers of Ethereum.

Ethereum’s Beacon Chain is undergoing a 7-block alteration process

Indeed, Vitalik Buterin, founding partner From Ethereum, I jumped in to add: “In this case, customer teams struggled to understand the situation. sSo I can figure out what needs to be fixed for the past few hours». Qualifying the theory withgood premise».

In this case, customer teams have been struggling to understand the situation so they can figure out what needs to be fixed within the last two hours! Already some good hypotheses:https://t.co/VbgjWloK8c

– Vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) 25 May 2022

Also, among the hypotheses was the developer of Ethereum, Preston Van Loon. It suggests:We believe this is because the implementation of a batch proposal fork polling has not been fully implemented on the network. This order is not indicative of a wrong fork selection, but rather a non-trivial hash of an updated client program versus an old client program.».

We believe this is because the Proposer Boost fork option is not fully implemented on the network. This rearrangement is not an indication of a defective fork selection, but a non-trivial hash of the updated client software versus the old client software.

– prestonvanloon.eth (@preston_vanloon) 25 May 2022

In fact, this was also the theory of Sigma Prime co-founder Mehdi Zerouali, who added that it was “Nothing is systematic“and one”A mixture of well-known insects».

But, as the Prysm developer explained, Terence CaoAlthough today’s change lasted long enough to raise serious concerns, it may have been just another case of misfortune.

In conclusion, Van Loon expressed: «All details will be announced as soon as we have a high degree of confidence regarding the case.».

I retired with this phrase from William Birdmore:The premise could be fruitful, not only for its proponents but, further, to lead to other new developments.».