Bitcoin transfer error results in $3 million in fees; AntPool agrees to reimburse them


© Reuters.

An unusual bitcoin transaction has attracted the attention of the cryptocurrency community and AntPool, a leading mining pool. 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 monitoring system due to the exorbitant amount of gas fees, which amounted to 83 BTC, and the funds were subsequently frozen.

The incident occurred when a user, known by the X (formerly Twitter) handle “83_5BTC,” attempted to transfer 139 BTC to a new cold wallet. After the transfer, the user claimed that their wallet had been hacked, suggesting that an automated script with faulty fee calculations could be responsible. Mononaut, a pseudonymous developer behind Mempool, then carried out a post-incident analysis, confirming the user’s statements by signing a message. Mononaut highlighted the possibility of a security breach, indicating that attackers could have used a fee replacement (RBF) tactic to inflate transaction fees and accelerate the theft of funds. The analysis highlighted weaknesses in wallet security practices, such asuse of a low entropy wallet like a brainwallet, as potential vulnerabilities.

In response to this incident, AntPool has implemented measures to allow the original owner to recover the funds. The owner must verify their identity using signing tools such as Electrum or Bitcoin Core and their private key. This process must be completed by December 10 so that the rightful owner can recover the assets.

This costly mistake serves as a cautionary tale for Bitcoin users, highlighting the importance of strong security measures and the need to be vigilant when setting transaction fees. It also highlights proactive measures taken by mining pools like AntPool to monitor and respond to anomalous activities on the blockchain.

This article was generated and translated with the help of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information, see our T&Cs.



Source link -95