The biggest event in the cryptocurrency world in 2016 was the theft of The DAO. The incident happened on June 17, when hackers took advantage of a contract loophole in The DAO and transferred more than 3.6 million ETH, which was worth more than $70 million at the time. The DAO, which had just set a new record in the history of cryptocurrency crowdfunding with a crowdfunding amount of $150 million, set a record for the largest amount of theft overnight. Those who participated in the private placement suddenly turned from cheering to lamenting.

Fortunately, the hacker failed to withdraw the money immediately, because the project had set a 27-day withdrawal period in order to raise the refund threshold. But what's the use of this? The blockchain is irreversible, and the facts that have happened cannot be changed. Once the 27-day withdrawal period is up, the hacker will take away the more than 3.6 million ETH in full view of the public. The most urgent and important thing is how to properly handle the subsequent compensation.

After the theft, the cryptocurrency community at home and abroad was full of criticism. People pointed the finger at the negligence of the project team. A small contract loophole caused so many investors to suffer huge losses. As a public offering platform, Ethereum was naturally nailed to the pillar of shame and accepted the investors' curses. Under the post of Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, there were all kinds of abuse, ridicule and ridicule in mixed Chinese and English. Although I did not join their ranks, I also cursed in my heart. This is not to say that I also participated in the private placement of The DAO. My anger came from: I didn't join in the fun, so why did you slap me in the face?

Affected by the theft of The DAO, ETH, which was about to break through $20 and set a new record, took a sharp turn downward, starting a six-month decline until it fell to $7. Although I sold most of my ETH as early as March, I am still a millionaire. This round of decline really hurt me, and this pain eventually turned into strong dissatisfaction with The DAO and Ethereum. Just like the theft of Mentougou two years ago, I and many others were not immune.

Afterwards, Vitalik quickly posted: "Trading suspended, we were attacked." Exchanges responded by suspending ETH and DAO trading, deposits and withdrawals. But this is just a last resort and cannot give a satisfactory explanation to the investors behind The DAO.

However, not long after, the anxious victims saw the light of day, because they waited for the final solution of the Ethereum team: fork Ethereum and roll back the transactions.

Rolling back the transaction is undoubtedly great news for the victims, as it means that the stolen ETH will be returned to the original owner; but for the entire cryptocurrency community, it is like a bolt from the blue. This is seen as a violation of the sacred principle that blockchain cannot be tampered with, illegal, centralized, and as ugly as hacker theft.

In the Ethereum community vote, the proposal to fork Ethereum won an overwhelming victory, and the rollback transaction was officially executed. However, some miners insisted on the principle that the blockchain cannot be tampered with and refused to implement the proposal; thus, Ethereum was split into two chains, one is the original chain - Ethereum Classic, and the other is the newly forked chain - Ethereum.

Although it has been several months, people who support and oppose the fork can still be seen attacking each other in the group. The former believes that it is reasonable and just to recover the losses of investors by rolling back the transaction; the latter believes that rolling back the transaction tramples on the decentralized spirit of blockchain and makes Ethereum and even the entire blockchain industry a joke.

What they said made sense, and each of their views had arguments to support them. But later I found that most of those who supported the fork were victims, while those who opposed the fork were the opposite. Faced with this question, I fell into deep thought, are their views influenced by their positions and interests, or do they come from their true thoughts deep in their hearts?

Sometimes, I think it is right and should be so; sometimes, I think it is wrong and should not be so. This repeated ideological struggle has always troubled me and made me doubt many things, especially the human nature in the face of interests. I kept asking myself: If it were me, what would I do? Finally, I compromised with myself. I no longer pursued the absolute "right and wrong theory", but instead the "pros and cons theory".