Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
BTC THORChain 拒绝列入 Bitget 黑客攻击关联地址黑名单，重申协议中立性
THORChain 拒绝将与 Bitget 交易所黑客攻击相关的钱包地址列入黑名单，理由是坚持协议的抗审查原则。与此同时，以太坊联合创始人 Vitalik Buterin 也单独就以太坊如何处理类似的网络中立性问题发表了看法。
THORChain 拒绝列入与 Bitget 黑客攻击关联的地址
这一决定使 THORChain 处于去中心化金融（DeFi）中反复出现的张力中心：无需许可的基础设施能否、或是否应该选择性阻止与已知漏洞相关的资金流动。THORChain 的核心设计将地址级中立性视为一种协议属性，而非管理设置。实施黑名单需要硬分叉或能够覆盖流动性路由的链下治理机制，而该协议的节点运营商历史上一直不愿采用此类方案。
这种拒绝并不意味着认可黑客行为或其所得资金。它反映了此前案例中应用相同的逻辑：当其他平台冻结相关地址后，黑客曾利用 THORChain 兑换被盗的比特币。在这些实例中，THORChain 的立场始终是：跨链流动性层不能充当合规执行层，否则将损害其为合法用户带来价值的“无需信任”特性。
The Bitget hacking incident is not an isolated case. On-chain investigators have linked some of the stolen funds to mixing-in activities;AMLBot traced the 4BTC flowing out of the Bitget hack into the Wasabi CoinJoin transaction, suggesting that attackers will use various means to cover up the flow of funds before they reach cross-chain bridges such as THORChain.
Key Points
- THOChain node operators refuse to implement address-level blacklists for wallets associated with Bitget hacking.
- Reasons include protocol neutrality and censorship resistance; implementing blacklists requires government-level intervention, which conflicts with the protocol's trustless design.
- This refusal continues the precedent of previous hacking incidents, where THORChain continues to function as a routing layer despite pressure from law enforcement agencies and exchanges to block funds.
- ZachXBT previously estimated that explosion losses from THORChain-related incidents could exceed US$10 million, indicating that the protocol is an attractive exit channel for cross-chain attackers. Every refusal to be blacklisted strengthens this perception, regardless of the intention.
Vitalik Buterin's comments on Ethereum add context to the immediate issue in China
Buterin's remarks about Ethereum-although mentioned in the title but not quoted in its entirety-fall into the same governance area. Buterin has written extensively and discussed the difference between Ethereum being neutral as a base layer and the choice of participants to take action on known bad behaviors at the application or social level. Since the exact expression of his latest remarks cannot be obtained in the research data of this article, it would be speculative to reconstruct these contents through paraphrasing.
These two scenarios share a structural issue: At which level of the decentralized stack should the appropriate responsibility for handling stolen funds be vested? THORChain's answer is that the protocol layer does not bear any responsibility. The ongoing debate in Ethereum, in which Buterin participated, concerns whether verifier or client-level coordination should be used for similar purposes, and whether doing so would undermine the credibility of the base-layer neutrality statement.
Ethereum remains the largest smart contract ecosystem by total locked value, so any shift in its stance will have a significant impact on the DeFi protocol, which relies on its infrastructure.
For users tracking stolen funds, the actual impact is that THORChain's rejection and Ethereum's neutrality debate have not turned off recovery options at the protocol level. Funding recovery is often achieved through cooperation with centralized exchanges, on-chain tracking by companies like AMLBot or ZachXBT, or legal action against identifiable counterparties. The THORSwap wallet vulnerability illustrates this dynamic: the protocol itself has not been modified, but off-chain coordination and bounty mechanisms provide a partial resolution path.
对于关注此领域的去中心化 AI 和计算基础设施开发者来说，更持久的一个问题在于：治理模块（包括理论上可实现地址级限制的链上投票系统）将被视为功能还是缺陷。在共识层面硬编码抗审查性的协议赢得了中立基础设施用户的信誉；而那些为治理层面干预留有余地的协议可能会发现，每当重大黑客事件将资金引入其流动性池时，这种灵活性就会成为一个压力点。
Ethereum 的代币市场指标反映出基础层信誉具有市场价值，这是一个信号，表明像 THORChain 这样的跨链协议也在为其自身定位进行押注。
