Bitcoin transfer error results in $3 million fee, AntPool agrees to refund fee By Investing.com
[ad_1]
© Ink Drop
In a perplexing turn of events, an unusual transaction has caught the attention of the cryptocurrency community and AntPool, one of the leading mining pools. A user inadvertently paid a staggering $3 million in transaction fees for sending $2.1 million worth of Bitcoin. The transaction, processed in block number 818,087, was flagged by AntPool’s risk control system due to the exorbitant gas fee, which equates to 83 BTC, and the funds were subsequently frozen.
The incident unfolded when a user, known by the X (formerly Twitter) handle “83_5BTC,” attempted to transfer 139 BTC to a new cold wallet. Following the transfer, the user claimed that their wallet had been hacked, suggesting that an automated script with flawed fee calculations might be responsible. This prompted a post-incident analysis by Mononaut, a pseudonymous developer behind Mempool, who confirmed the user’s claim by message signing. Mononaut highlighted the possibility of a security compromise, indicating that attackers could have employed a replace-by-fee (RBF) tactic to inflate the transaction fees and hasten the theft of funds. The analysis pointed to weak wallet security practices, such as the usage of a low-entropy wallet like a brainwallet, as potential vulnerabilities.
In response to the incident, AntPool has laid out steps for the original owner to reclaim the funds. The owner is required to verify their identity using signature tools such as Electrum or Bitcoin Core with their private key. This process must be completed before December 10th to ensure the rightful owner can recover the assets.
The costly mistake serves as a cautionary tale for Bitcoin users, emphasizing the importance of robust security measures and the need for vigilance when setting transaction fees. It also showcases the proactive measures taken by mining pools like AntPool to monitor and respond to abnormal activities on the blockchain.
This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.
[ad_2]
Source link
© Ink Drop
In a perplexing turn of events, an unusual transaction has caught the attention of the cryptocurrency community and AntPool, one of the leading mining pools. A user inadvertently paid a staggering $3 million in transaction fees for sending $2.1 million worth of Bitcoin. The transaction, processed in block number 818,087, was flagged by AntPool’s risk control system due to the exorbitant gas fee, which equates to 83 BTC, and the funds were subsequently frozen.
The incident unfolded when a user, known by the X (formerly Twitter) handle “83_5BTC,” attempted to transfer 139 BTC to a new cold wallet. Following the transfer, the user claimed that their wallet had been hacked, suggesting that an automated script with flawed fee calculations might be responsible. This prompted a post-incident analysis by Mononaut, a pseudonymous developer behind Mempool, who confirmed the user’s claim by message signing. Mononaut highlighted the possibility of a security compromise, indicating that attackers could have employed a replace-by-fee (RBF) tactic to inflate the transaction fees and hasten the theft of funds. The analysis pointed to weak wallet security practices, such as the usage of a low-entropy wallet like a brainwallet, as potential vulnerabilities.
In response to the incident, AntPool has laid out steps for the original owner to reclaim the funds. The owner is required to verify their identity using signature tools such as Electrum or Bitcoin Core with their private key. This process must be completed before December 10th to ensure the rightful owner can recover the assets.
The costly mistake serves as a cautionary tale for Bitcoin users, emphasizing the importance of robust security measures and the need for vigilance when setting transaction fees. It also showcases the proactive measures taken by mining pools like AntPool to monitor and respond to abnormal activities on the blockchain.
This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.
About The Author
