the nuance here i think is that it may be important to use the right words.. there isnt really a 'chain rollback'.. its a fork. there would be north korea eth, and new eth.. sure, on the new fork the data has been altered i am unsure exactly how they decide what to change but its a mess im sure.. maybe they get a little richer on the side too with their buddies, fudge a couple extra eth in for the exchanges or stakeholders to 'convince them'.

because what happens is vitalik and crew have to get all the exchanges and the validators and everybody to switch to the new fork. they will still call it eth of course. if they cant get a consensus then it wont happen. if they do, many centralized exchanges will keep the old eth and dump it. usually the customers that have coins there will not be able to participate in this.

so, anyways, yeah i think it is important to call it a fork, so people are more aware how stuff happens, as it can happen with any blockchain (including bitcoin). once cz said he and friends 'had the power' to do this dance with bitcoin but decided not to as to not erode the faith. it could have easily happened for the BCH thing too and could come up again for bitcoin in the future.

this is why its important to mine, to run nodes, and be aware how things work.. so calling it a rollback doesn't really do it justice.

carry on! 😂